Mejia v. Miller

"The existence of alternative remedial structures is reason enough not to infer a new Bivens cause of action.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1804 (2022),

Miller sought relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(6). Relief was denied and he appealed. Mejia alleged Miller used excessive force when arresting him on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition to filing a claim under the FTCA, Mejia claimed a cause of action under Bivens, for unreasonable seizure and excessive force. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Miller was granted summary judgment on qualified immunity, on the unreasonable seizure claim, but was denied for the excessive force claim. Under Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1804 (2022), “the existence of alternative remedial structures is reason enough not to infer a new Bivens cause of action.” The courts rarely expand the context under which a Biven cause of action can be claimed since Egbert. The Court held that the case did not constitute a new context to expand a Bivens action. The Court reasoned that no unreasonable government intrusion of a private home existed and an alternative administrative remedy existed. Furthermore, the effect of a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against the BLM “would have ‘systemwide consequences.'” VACATED AND REMANDED.