Temkin v. Shoemaker, 7:24-cv-00430

Plaintiffs (Ruben Temkin; two business entities; and two employees) sued HSI Special Agent Matthew Shoemaker and unidentified HSI agents under Bivens for constitutional violations arising from searches/seizures of a bonded warehouse and duty-free stores in March and June 2024.
Plaintiffs allege unlawful seizure of merchandise (cigarettes), copying/seizing of computers and documents after coercing employee passwords, prolonged detention and compelled statements, and seizure of employees’ phones.
Plaintiff Quintero alleges pregnancy-related harms (panic/seizure and premature birth) due to the June 6, 2024 raid; businesses suspended operations and suffered monetary loss from seized cigarettes.
Causes of action asserted: Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution/false arrest, Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure, Fifth Amendment equal protection (racial/ethnic animus), Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel/attorney-client-privilege claim — all brought as Bivens actions.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claims present new Bivens contexts (so no implied cause of action) and, alternatively, qualified immunity. Magistrate Judge Alanis recommends granting the motion and dismissing with prejudice because the alleged claims are not cognizable under Bivens.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether malicious prosecution claim is cognizable under Bivens	Temkin: Shoemaker prosecuted without probable cause and with improper motive	Defs: Fifth Circuit forecloses Bivens malicious prosecution; alternative statutory remedies exist	Dismissed — new Bivens context; special factors counsel against extension
Whether unequal-treatment (race/ethnicity) Equal Protection claim is cognizable under Bivens	Temkin: Investigation was motivated by racial/ethnic animus ("Mexican-Jewish origin")	Defs: Presents a new Bivens context; speculative facts; special factors counsel hesitation	Dismissed — new context; decline to extend Bivens
Whether Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure claims are cognizable under Bivens	Plaintiffs: Warrants were based on misinformation/stale info, making searches effectively unlawful	Defs: Fourth Amendment claims here present a new Bivens context and should not be extended	Dismissed — factual differences from Bivens (warrants, HSI/ DHS agents) create new context; special factors weigh against extension
Whether Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel/privilege claim is cognizable under Bivens	Plaintiffs: Seizure of computers gave agents access to communications with counsel	Defs: No recognized Sixth Amendment Bivens cause; presents new context	Dismissed — new context; alternative remedial mechanisms exist; no plausible denial of counsel alleged

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (implied damages remedy for certain Fourth Amendment violations)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (recognition of Bivens-type remedy for certain Fifth Amendment sex-discrimination claims)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (recognition of Bivens-type remedy for Eighth Amendment medical care claim)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (two-step framework: new Bivens context and special factors analysis)
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (refusal to extend Bivens; recognition that creating damages remedies is ordinarily for Congress)
Goldey v. Fields, 606 U.S. 942 (discussing the narrowed scope of Bivens in recent jurisprudence)
Cantu v. Moody, 933 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. holding that malicious prosecution is a new Bivens context)
Hernandez v. Causey, 124 F.4th 325 (5th Cir.: broad view of "new context"; declines to extend Bivens to new categories of federal actors)