K.B. v. Perez, 664 F. App'x 756

K.B.’s father was convicted of distributing child pornography, sentenced to prison, and finished confinement at a Colorado halfway house before supervised release.
A sentencing-court order required the father to complete sex-offender evaluation/treatment but expressly stated nothing in the program could prevent him from having unsupervised contact with his minor children.
While the father was at the halfway house, staff initially allowed K.B. to visit; the father’s probation officer later directed staff to prohibit K.B.’s visits, citing Colorado SOMB guidelines and claiming he was seeking “clarification.”
K.B.’s visitation was denied for about seven weeks, causing her alleged severe emotional distress; visitation later resumed and the father began supervised release and moved home.
K.B. sued the probation officer under Bivens for deprivation of her constitutional right of familial association; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and alternatively granted qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Bivens remedy exists for a federal probation officer’s interference with a minor’s right to familial association	K.B.: Bivens should extend to allow damages for deprivation of familial association	Probation officer: No established Bivens remedy in this context; qualified immunity applies	No Bivens remedy recognized; suit dismissed
Whether alternative remedies preclude a new Bivens action	K.B.: Her own remedies are inadequate; she needs a direct damages remedy	Probation officer: Father has available administrative and injunctive remedies, so judicial creation of damages remedy is unnecessary	Court found existing remediation avenues (for father) weigh against creating a new Bivens remedy
Whether special factors counsel hesitation before extending Bivens	K.B.: No special factors bar judicially-created remedy here	Probation officer: Extending Bivens would conflict with Supreme Court’s reluctance to expand Bivens and risk broad, unpredictable consequences	Court held special factors and precedent counsel against extension of Bivens
Whether qualified immunity must be decided	K.B.: Court should reach merits and deny immunity	Probation officer: Qualified immunity applies because law was not clearly established	Court did not reach qualified immunity because it disposed of the case on the absence of a Bivens remedy

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy against federal officers)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
Shimomura v. Carlson, 811 F.3d 349 (standards for de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090 (viewing factual allegations in plaintiff’s favor on dismissal)
Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386 (familial-association is a protected liberty interest)
Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210 (noting Supreme Court reluctance to extend Bivens)
Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (Supreme Court’s decline to extend Bivens remedies)
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (limits on implying Bivens remedies)
Ingram v. Faruque, 728 F.3d 1239 (framework for deciding whether to create new Bivens remedy)