3:24-cv-00392
D. Nev.Sep 3, 2025Background
- Hannah Hoekstra, a volunteer registered nurse with Burning Man’s Emergency Services, was detained at the 2022 Burning Man event after PCSO Deputy Donna Robinson entered a participant's private tent and threatened to arrest Hoekstra for obstructing an investigation; Deputies Robinson and Boyer handcuffed and detained Hoekstra for ~40 minutes without charges.
- BLM Ranger P. Zoltovetz assisted during the detention: he pulled Hoekstra’s arm, tightened handcuffs after an attempted loosening, removed her belongings, and pressured a bystander to stop filming. Hoekstra alleges physical injury and PTSD from the incident.
- Hoekstra sued Pershing County, PCSO deputies, and Ranger Zoltovetz asserting (1) Fourth Amendment (Bivens) claim, (2) Nevada Constitution Fourth Amendment claim, (3) false imprisonment (state tort), and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (state tort).
- Zoltovetz moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing (a) no Bivens remedy in this context, (b) federal employee cannot be liable under state constitution, and (c) FTCA exhaustion bars state tort claims arising from federal-scope conduct. He also sought partial summary judgment on tort claims.
- The Court declined to consider extrinsic documents cited by Zoltovetz (MOUs, operations plan, bodycam) for the Rule 12 analyses and addressed whether Bivens applies, whether state-constitution claims can proceed against a federal actor, and whether FTCA exhaustion or scope-of-employment issues require dismissal.
- Ruling: Court dismissed the Bivens (federal Fourth Amendment) claim against Zoltovetz with prejudice; denied dismissal of the Nevada Constitution claim (allowed to proceed against Zoltovetz on a theory he acted under color of state law); dismissed claims for false imprisonment and IIED without prejudice but granted leave to amend limited to allegations that Zoltovetz acted outside the scope of his federal employment (and noted FTCA exhaustion implications). Summary-judgment request denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens remedy exists for alleged Fourth Amendment seizure by a BLM ranger assisting state deputies | Hoekstra alleged Zoltovetz violated her Fourth Amendment rights while acting under color of federal law; seeks Bivens damages | Zoltovetz argued Bivens should not extend to a BLM ranger in this joint/state-enforcement context and special factors counsel hesitation | Dismissed: Bivens claim does not extend to this context; claim 1 dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether a Nevada Constitution Fourth Amendment claim can proceed against a federal ranger | Hoekstra contends factual dispute exists and alleges Zoltovetz acted as a de facto agent of Pershing County, so state-constitutional liability is plausible | Zoltovetz contended federal supremacy/sovereign immunity precludes state-constitutional claims against a federal employee acting under federal authority | Denied: Court found FAC plausibly alleges Zoltovetz acted under color of state law; claim 2 may proceed |
| Whether state tort claims (false imprisonment and IIED) against a federal employee are barred for failure to exhaust FTCA administrative remedies | Hoekstra argues these claims are only asserted to the extent Zoltovetz acted under state authority and/or outside federal scope; factual disputes exist | Zoltovetz argued FTCA governs and Hoekstra failed to exhaust administrative remedies, depriving the court of jurisdiction | Dismissed without prejudice: claims 3 and 4 dismissed but Plaintiff may amend to allege conduct outside scope of federal employment or exhaust FTCA remedies |
| Whether extrinsic operational documents and bodycam footage may be considered on Rule 12 motion | Hoekstra objected; argued factual disputes make consideration inappropriate | Zoltovetz submitted MOU, operations plan, website, and bodycam footage | Not considered for Rule 12 dismissal analysis; Court declined to treat motion as converted to summary judgment on those bases |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy for federal Fourth Amendment violations)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) (explaining limits on extending Bivens to new contexts)
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) (refusing to extend Bivens in a new context; special-factors analysis)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens recognized in Eighth Amendment medical-treatment context)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (declining to extend Bivens beyond established contexts)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (limited extension of Bivens-type relief in narrow contexts)
- Mejia v. Miller, 61 F.4th 663 (9th Cir. 2023) (declining Bivens for BLM-officer excessive-force context and noting special factors and alternative remedies)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (federal officers generally not state actors for Section 1983 unless acting under color of state law)
- McLachlan v. Bell, 261 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2001) (FTCA scope-of-employment analysis follows state respondeat superior principles)