Parker v. Manzano

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 24-1723
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 30 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEREK RICHARD PARKER, No. 24-1723 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-00001-RBM-SBC v. MEMORANDUM* MIMI MANZANO, United States Probation Officer; YMELDA VALENZUELA, United States Probation Supervisory Officer; CHRISTOPHER J. MARCO, United States Probation Supervisory Officer; JOHN DOES, 1 through 10,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Derek Parker (“Appellant”) appeals the district court's order dismissing with

prejudice his pro se amended complaint, which alleges that U.S. Probation Officers

* 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). Mimi Manzano, Ymelda Valenzuela, and Christopher Marco (“Appellees”)

violated his Fourth Amendment rights. As the parties are familiar with the facts

we do not recite them here except as the pertain to our ruling. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to

dismiss the amended complaint, Weston Fam. P’ship LLLP v. Twitter, Inc., 29

F.4th 611, 617 (9th Cir. 2022), and review for abuse of discretion the district

court’s denial of leave to amend, Havensight Cap. LLC v. Nike, Inc., 891 F.3d

1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2018).

Because Appellant seeks damages against Appellees in their individual

capacities “despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right,” Appellant’s

case is analyzed under the Bivens1 framework. Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18

(1980). Appellant’s alleged facts are “different in a meaningful way from

previous Bivens cases decided by [the Supreme Court].” Vega v. United States,

881 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). None of the previously

decided Bivens cases involved a third-party right to withhold firearm information

from the U.S. Probation Office. Under the special factors analysis, we decline to

extend a Bivens remedy to Appellant’s claim. See id. Appellant’s claim calls “into

question the formulation and implementation of a general policy” of the U.S.

1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2 24-1723 Probation Office, which the judiciary may not do. See Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S.

482, 492 (2022) (“If there is even a single ‘reason to pause before applying Bivens

in a new context,’ a court may not recognize a Bivens remedy.” (quotation

omitted)).

Insofar as Appellant seeks damages against Appellees in their official

capacities, the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for

constitutional claims. See DaVinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States, 926 F.3d 1117,

1127 (9th Cir. 2019). Thus, Appellant’s claim is also barred on those grounds.

Appellant’s motion for early discovery [Dkt. Entry No. 20] is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1723