CUSTER v. GREEN, 2:23-cv-01903

Background

Pro se plaintiff Anthony Joseph Custer sued federal agencies, numerous federal officials, Federal Protective Service employees, and Triple Canopy (a private security contractor) after repeated attempts (Aug–Sept 2022) to enter the Philadelphia Social Security Administration (SSA) office were denied because he refused to wear a mask.
Custer alleges Triple Canopy employees threatened him with a gun, pepper‑sprayed and handcuffed him, and Federal Protective Service personnel held and questioned him; he received two Central Violations Bureau citations that were later dismissed.
He seeks money damages, an injunction lifting a ban from SSA offices, a warrant for alleged “special deposit” property, and mandamus directing federal agencies to produce social‑security/IRS account records.
The Court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis; earlier complaint had been dismissed with leave to amend.
The Court found the pleadings legally and factually deficient: many defendants lack alleged personal involvement; Custer invoked sovereign‑citizen style trusts and legalisms; he did not plead FTCA exhaustion or diversity for state torts.
Ruling: the Court dismissed all constitutional (Bivens) claims with prejudice and dismissed state law claims without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; injunctive and mandamus relief denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Bivens to claims against federal agencies and official‑capacity defendants	Custer seeks Bivens damages from agencies and officials for constitutional violations during SSA visits	Agencies and official‑capacity suits are effectively suits against the United States and barred by sovereign immunity	Bivens claims against agencies and official‑capacity defendants dismissed (sovereign immunity)
Personal‑involvement requirement for Bivens suits against high‑level officials	Custer names many senior officials (SSA, DHS, Treasury, DOJ) as defendants	No facts allege these officials personally participated in the incidents	Claims against named high‑level officials dismissed for failure to plausibly allege personal involvement
Liability of private contractor (Triple Canopy) under Bivens	Custer sues Triple Canopy and its employees for constitutional torts (assault, pepper‑spray, handcuffs)	Private entities performing government contracts are not subject to Bivens damages remedies	Claims against Triple Canopy under Bivens implausible and dismissed (Malesko principle)
Extension of Bivens to First Amendment and Fourth Amendment (temporary detention/excessive force)	Custer alleges First Amendment violations and a Fourth Amendment false‑imprisonment/excessive‑force claim from being held and pepper‑sprayed	Supreme Court and Third Circuit limit Bivens to narrow, recognized contexts; First Amendment Bivens remedy has not been recognized	Court declined to extend Bivens; First Amendment claim not cognizable; Fourth Amendment detention allegations do not fit narrow Bivens context and were dismissed
Mandamus and documents/"special deposit" relief	Custer seeks writs compelling judges, court clerks, a state ADA, and federal agencies to return property/produce accounts	Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 applies only to federal officers/employees; courts cannot compel judges or state officials; mandamus is extraordinary and requires no other adequate remedy	Mandamus requests denied for lack of jurisdiction or because targets are not proper federal officers; requests against judges/state officials barred
State tort claims (assault, battery, negligence) and federal jurisdiction	Custer asserts state law torts against Triple Canopy employees	Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction only if federal claims survive; diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and $75,000 amount in controversy	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (insufficient diversity/pleading)

Key Cases Cited

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy under Fourth Amendment)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 520 U.S. 120 (courts reluctant to extend Bivens beyond limited contexts)
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (refusal to extend Bivens to new Fourth and First Amendment contexts)
Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (no Bivens damages remedy against private corporations acting under color of federal law)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (one of the narrow contexts where Bivens‑type relief has been recognized)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Eighth Amendment Bivens context recognized)
F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity bars suits against federal agencies absent waiver)
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California, 426 U.S. 394 (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (standards for preliminary injunctive relief)