558 F. App'x 350
5th Cir.2014Background
- Gonzalez, a Border Patrol agent on probation (hired Oct 2007), was terminated Sept 16, 2009 after remarks on drug legalization and Mexican immigration made while on patrol.
- Internal Affairs investigation followed a coworker’s report; termination letter cited views "contrary to core characteristics of Border Patrol Agents."
- Gonzalez filed an EEOC discrimination complaint, which an administrative judge rejected; he did not seek further EEOC review.
- He then sued Manjarrez in district court under Bivens and the Declaratory Judgment Act alleging First Amendment retaliation; he later sought to pursue OSC/MSPB remedies and moved to stay.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as Bivens claims by federal employees covered by the CSRA are precluded, and declined to exercise declaratory-judgment jurisdiction; Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens damages remedy is available for Gonzalez’s First Amendment claim arising from his termination while a probationary federal employee | Gonzalez: CSRA’s exclusion of probationary employees from MSPB review leaves no judicial forum; Elgin requires a heightened showing before precluding judicial review of colorable constitutional claims | Manjarrez: Fifth Circuit precedent (Broadway, Grisham, etc.) precludes Bivens suits for employment-related constitutional claims covered by the CSRA; Congress intended CSRA’s comprehensive scheme to be exclusive | Held: Bivens remedy precluded; CSRA framework is exclusive even if it leaves probationary employees without further judicial review — affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining declaratory-judgment relief | Gonzalez: District court should have exercised jurisdiction (argued Broadway not controlling; referenced Colorado River standard at oral argument) | Manjarrez: Declaratory relief would interfere with Congress’s remedial scheme; Brillhart/Trejo abstention factors support dismissal | Held: No abuse of discretion; court properly applied Brillhart/Trejo factors and declined to hear declaratory claim — affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Broadway v. Block, 694 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1982) (precludes Bivens remedy for employment-related constitutional claims covered by CSRA)
- Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) (statutory CSRA review scheme exclusive even for constitutional claims; heightened showing does not overcome exclusivity)
- Fausto v. United States, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (CSRA provides comprehensive remedial scheme for federal employment disputes)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983) (Congress better positioned than courts to decide remedies for federal employee constitutional claims)
- Grisham v. United States, 103 F.3d 24 (5th Cir. 1997) (Bivens First Amendment employment claims barred where CSRA applies)
- Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491 (1942) (district courts have broad discretion whether to hear declaratory-judgment actions)
- St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Trejo, 39 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 1994) (nonexclusive factors guiding declaratory-judgment abstention)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes Cnty., 343 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2003) (review standard for dismissal of declaratory-judgment actions)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (recognizes that some personnel actions leave employees without CSRA remedies)
- Rollins v. Marsh, 937 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1991) (CSRA exclusivity for employment-related constitutional claims)