Brandon P. Hronich v. Andrea Hernandez, Chris Pena, and Las Cruces Federal Probation Office

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico orders pro se Plaintiff Brandon P. Hronich to show cause why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied based on his reported income and assets. The Court also orders Plaintiff to show cause why his civil-rights complaint should not be dismissed, explaining that Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials and that the complaint appears not to state a viable Bivens claim against federal probation officers or a federal probation office.

Holdings

1. The financial information in Plaintiff's application appeared to show that he could pay the $405 filing fee, so the court ordered him to show cause why the application should not be denied.
2. The complaint failed to state a claim under § 1983 against Defendants Hernandez and Pena because § 1983 provides a remedy for federal-rights violations by persons acting under color of state law, while the complaint identified these defendants as federal officials.
3. Because the individual defendants were federal officials, the court construed Plaintiff's pro se complaint as asserting claims under Bivens rather than § 1983.
4. The complaint appeared to fail to state a Bivens claim against the federal probation officers because neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit had authorized a Bivens action to redress constitutional violations by federal probation officers, and the court would not extend Bivens in the circumstances presented.
5. A Bivens claim cannot be asserted directly against a federal agency or against federal officials in their official capacities; therefore the complaint failed to state a Bivens claim against the Las Cruces Federal Probation Office.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's financial information showed that he could pay the filing fee and therefore should be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether a claim against federal probation officers for allegedly preventing church attendance could proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or should instead be construed as a Bivens claim.
3. Whether Bivens provides a remedy against federal probation officers for the alleged constitutional violation.
4. Whether a Bivens claim may be asserted against a federal probation office.

Disposition

other