Aaron Wider v. Eric Myrene, in his individual and official capacities; and the United States of America

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Aaron Wider’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. The court held that Wider’s claims concerning his federal probation officer’s supervision were not cognizable under Bivens, were barred by immunity and potentially Heck v. Humphrey, and that his Federal Tort Claims Act claim was barred by failure to exhaust and the discretionary-function exception. The court also denied pending motions as moot.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff's Bivens claims necessarily failed because they did not arise in one of the three specific contexts recognized by the Supreme Court, and the circumstances did not justify extending Bivens.
2. Defendant Myrene was entitled to absolute prosecutorial and quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken during Plaintiff's federal supervision.
3. Disputes concerning Plaintiff's federal supervision had to be raised in the ongoing criminal supervision proceedings rather than through a new federal civil action.
4. Plaintiff's FTCA claim failed because he did not allege that he presented the claim to the appropriate agency and received a written denial.
5. Leave to amend would be futile because the alleged negligent acts were discretionary actions taken in the course of supervising Plaintiff and were barred by the FTCA discretionary-function exception.
6. Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis because his claims failed to state a viable nonfrivolous claim, and the requested injunctive relief was unavailable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's Bivens claims arising from alleged conduct by his federal probation officer stated a viable claim.
2. Whether the probation officer was entitled to absolute prosecutorial or quasi-judicial immunity for conduct undertaken in supervising Plaintiff's federal release.
3. Whether Plaintiff's claims were barred or potentially barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success could imply the invalidity of an ongoing sentence or future revocation proceeding.
4. Whether Plaintiff stated an FTCA negligence claim where he did not allege exhaustion and the alleged conduct fell within the discretionary-function exception.
5. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis or obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Disposition

dismissed