McDonald v. Kempthorne, 831 F. Supp. 2d 313

McDonald, a black USPP officer, sues Secretary of the Interior and USPP personnel for Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
The May 26, 2006 incident involved Beck blocking McDonald, confiscating a tape recorder, and a forced search after suspecting recording of a meeting; union representation was sought.
Post-incident, McDonald was put on administrative leave and later assigned to the Brentwood Auto Shop on restricted duties.
April 2008 the CSRA-based removal proposal alleged lack of candor and failure to follow a direct order; Notice outlined specific G.O. violations.
McDonald filed suit on October 2, 2008 alleging unlawful search/seizure, due process deprivations, and hostile environment/retaliation for prior EEO complaints.
Defendants move to dismiss arguing timeliness, absence of due process, and qualified immunity; court ultimately grants the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the Bivens claims	McDonald timely filed within 3-year period for constitutional claims.	Claims untimely under DC limitations; law should apply 3-year period for Bivens actions.	Claims timely under 3-year period; timely.
Procedural due process for removal from duties	Removal/change in duties deprived property interest without due process.	No property interest in assignment to Brentwood; CSRA limits apply; no procedural deprivations.	No procedural due process violation; reassignment not a protected property interest.
Name-clearing hearing and liberty interest	Defamation and public stigma require a name-clearing hearing.	Alleged defamation not shown publicly; no liberty interest triggered.	No liberty interest; no right to a name-clearing hearing.
Fourth Amendment warrantless search/seizure and qualified immunity	Seizure/search of officer without probable cause violated Fourth Amendment.	Seizure was an internal administrative investigation; qualified immunity shields officers.	Qualified immunity applies; right not clearly established for this context; dismissal affirmed.
Hostile work environment/ retaliation precluded by comprehensive scheme	Fifth Amendment discrimination claims viable as Bivens remedy.	Title VII provides exclusive remedy; CSRA/FECA preclude Bivens claims.	Dismissed due to comprehensive remedial schemes (Title VII/CSRA/FECA).

Doe v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (look to federal limitations period for constitutional claims)
Lederman v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2001) (three-year period best for Bivens actions)
Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (borrow limitations period for constitutional torts to promote uniformity)
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1983) (CSRA not comprehensive for warrantless searches; precludes Bivens only where comprehensive)
Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (comprehensive remedial scheme governs Bivens availability)
O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness standard for governmental workplace searches)
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1967) (policemen’s rights in internal investigations)
Driebel v. City of Milwaukee, 298 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2002) (administrative investigations require individualized suspicion)
Myers v. Baca, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (workplace seizures can be unusual in law enforcement context)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (clearly established right requires specific contours in given context)