Sissoko

Robert M. Loeb, Richard A. Olderman and Anne Murphy, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellants.

Martin Simone, Leonard M. Roos and Helen Wong, Frank, Greenberg, Simone & Stefanski, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

Before: OTTO R. SKOPIL, JR., JOHN T. NOONAN, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge BERZON; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge SKOPIL.

The opinion filed on March 16, 2006 is hereby withdrawn and replaced by this concurrently filed opinion. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied as moot.

BERZON, Circuit Judge:

The factual and procedural background of these appeals is set out in our now-withdrawn opinion. See Sissoko v. Rocha, 440 F.3d 1145, 1149-53 (9th Cir. 2006). We adopt the "scope of review" section of our prior opinion, id. at 1153-54 , and affirm the district court's denial of Rocha's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) with respect to her newly raised legal issue concerning Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Rocha contends that the district court lacked…

Opinion by Judge BERZON; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge SKOPIL.

ORDER

The opinion filed on March 16, 2006 is hereby withdrawn and replaced by this concurrently filed opinion. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied as moot.

OPINION

The factual and procedural background of these appeals is set out in our now-withdrawn opinion. See Sissoko v. Rocha, 440 F.3d 1145, 1149-53 (9th Cir.2006). We adopt the “scope of review” section of our prior opinion, id. at 1153-54 , and affirm the district court’s denial of Rocha’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) with respect to her newly raised legal issue concerning Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Rocha contends that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the Sissokos’ Fourth Amendment-based damages claim for false arrest. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g) (“Exclusive jurisdiction. Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title,…

concurring in part; dissenting in part:

I concur in the decision to withdraw our prior opinion, Sissoko v. Rocha, 440 F.3d *952 1145 (9th Cir.2006), and to file a revised one. I do not agree, however, with footnote 8 of the revised opinion and, accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision to include the footnote.