Ministerio Roca Solida v. Sharon McKelvey
820 F.3d 1090
9th Cir.2016Background
- Ministerio Roca Solida (a religious nonprofit) owns a parcel within the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and used a stream on its land for religious, recreational, and irrigation purposes.
- FWS Refuge Manager Sharon McKelvey supervised a restoration project that diverted the stream off Roca Solida’s property, allegedly causing loss of use and flood damage to the camp.
- Roca Solida sued the United States and McKelvey, asserting Takings, Due Process, Free Exercise, and FTCA claims; monetary damages were asserted only against the United States (via FTCA/Tucker Act), not McKelvey.
- Roca Solida sought declaratory and injunctive relief against McKelvey in her individual capacity (seeking an order compelling restoration of the stream’s former route).
- The district court denied McKelvey’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, allowing the Bivens-based individual-capacity claims for injunctive/declaratory relief to proceed and rejecting qualified immunity; McKelvey appealed interlocutorily.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Bivens provides a damages remedy against federal officers in their individual capacities and does not authorize purely equitable relief that would require official (governmental) action; such relief must be sought against the United States or via statutory remedies (e.g., APA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roca Solida can bring a Bivens claim against McKelvey in her individual capacity seeking only injunctive/declaratory relief (to restore the stream) | Bivens can be invoked as an avenue to redress constitutional violations by federal agents regardless of the nature of relief sought; seeks personal order against McKelvey | Bivens is a damages remedy against officers in their individual capacities and cannot be used to compel official government action; equitable relief against the government must be pursued against the United States or under statutes like the APA | Reversed: Bivens does not authorize purely equitable relief against an individual officer when the requested relief requires official action; claim against McKelvey in her individual capacity dismissed |
| Whether qualified immunity bars the individual-capacity claim | Roca Solida implicitly argued equitable relief was permissible, so immunity inapplicable | McKelvey contended qualified immunity protects her (only relevant for damages suits) | Court did not reach qualified immunity because Bivens claim failed; noted qualified immunity protects only against money damages suits |
| Whether sovereign immunity is implicated by seeking injunctive relief against an individual officer acting in official capacity | Plaintiff maintained the claim was against McKelvey individually | Defendant argued that an injunction against official action functions as a claim against the United States and implicates sovereign immunity | Court agreed: injunctive relief requiring official action is effectively an official-capacity (i.e., against the United States) claim and not cognizable under Bivens |
| Whether alternative statutory remedies counsel against a Bivens remedy | Roca Solida proceeded under Bivens for individual relief | McKelvey pointed to APA waiver of sovereign immunity for non-monetary relief and other statutory avenues | Court noted APA and other statutes provide alternative means and that Bivens is both unnecessary and inappropriate for purely equitable relief; did not fully decide Wilkie two-step because dismissal on Bivens grounds was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing private cause of action for money damages against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (reaffirming Bivens as a damages remedy)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (distinguishing damages claims against individuals from injunctive relief and noting courts may grant appropriate injunctive relief but not to convert Bivens into official-capacity relief)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (Bivens is not a vehicle to alter an entity’s policy; limited to individual damages)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (two-step test for extending Bivens: look for alternative remedies and special factors counseling hesitation)
- Vaccaro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing individual-capacity Bivens damages suits from official-capacity injunctive suits)
- Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir.) (Bivens lies against individuals, not for official-capacity injunctive relief)
- Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (injunctive relief against officials acting in official capacity is a claim against the United States and barred without waiver)
- Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002 (7th Cir.) (acknowledging Bivens claims describe constitutional injuries by agents but distinguishing official-capacity actions)
- Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, 953 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D.D.C.) (Bivens does not provide relief when plaintiff seeks injunctive relief enforceable only against a federal agency)