Cornell J. Wigfall, Sr. a/k/a Cornell Wigfall, #2022081307, a/k/a Cornell Jermaine Wigfall v. James C. White

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina overruled Cornell J. Wigfall’s objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court held that Wigfall failed to state a cognizable Bivens claim concerning the search and seizure of a package, alleged falsification of evidence, and his arrest pursuant to a federal warrant. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff failed to state a cognizable Bivens claim for a Fourth Amendment violation related to the search and seizure because the claim involves searches and a seizure conducted with a warrant, which implicates a distinct Fourth Amendment guarantee meaningfully different from the one at issue in Bivens itself.
2. The plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Fifth Amendment are not cognizable under Bivens. The due process claim fails for the same reasons as the Fourth Amendment claim (new context, special factors). The takings claim fails because the plaintiff did not allege any private property was taken for public use.
3. The plaintiff cannot state an Eighth Amendment claim for conduct related to his arrest because the Eighth Amendment's protections do not attach until after a conviction and sentence.
4. The plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment must be dismissed because the Fourteenth Amendment is implicated only when there is state action, and the defendant was acting under color of federal law.
5. Any Fourth Amendment claim related to the plaintiff's arrest is subject to summary dismissal because it presents a new Bivens context and special factors counsel against extending Bivens.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff stated a cognizable Bivens claim for a Fourth Amendment violation related to the search and seizure of a package.
2. Whether the plaintiff stated a cognizable Bivens claim for Fifth Amendment due process or takings violations.
3. Whether the plaintiff stated a cognizable Bivens claim for an Eighth Amendment violation related to his arrest.
4. Whether the plaintiff stated a cognizable Bivens claim for a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
5. Whether the plaintiff stated a cognizable Bivens claim for a Fourth Amendment violation related to his arrest.

Disposition

affirmed