Hughes v. Marquez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-1803
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL TRELAWNEY HUGHES, No. 24-1803 D.C. No. 5:22-cv-02117-KK-RAO Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MARQUEZ, Correctional Officer of Federal Prison; Lieutenant T. DENNIS; FLORES, Correctional Officer of Federal Prison; McKINNEY, Warden; CHAVIRA, OFC; HILL, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Kenly Kiya Kato, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Samuel Trelawney Hughes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.

1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hughes’s action because a Bivens

remedy is unavailable for his claims. See Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 490-93,

498-99 (2022) (concluding that there is no Bivens cause of action for a First

Amendment retaliation claim, and explaining that recognizing a cause of action

under Bivens is a disfavored judicial activity and that the presence of an alternative

remedial structure precludes recognizing a Bivens cause of action in a new

context); Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1105-08 (9th Cir. 2023) (declining

to extend a Bivens remedy to an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1803