MEMORANDUM

Former detainee Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under 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), alleging claims concerning his detention at Northwest Detention Center, a federal immigration facility. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Karboau’s claims against the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), DHS and ICE officials in their official capacity, and two fellow detainees because a Bivens claim is not available against federal agencies, federal agents in their official capacity, or private individuals. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (no Bivens claims against federal agencies); Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157, 1173 (9th Cir.2007) (no Bivens suit against agents in their official capacity); Morgan v. United States, 323 F.3d 776, 780 (9th Cir.2003) (Bivens claim lies against agents in their individual capacity acting under color of federal law).

The district court properly dismissed Karboau’s Eighth Amendment claims against individual employees of the private entity running the federal detention center because Karboau’s exclusive remedy for such claims is pursuant to state tort law. See Minneci v. Pollard, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 617, 626 , 181 L.Ed.2d 606 (2012) (federal inmate has no Bivens claims against private employees working at a privately operated federal prison for denial of medical care or similar conduct that typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law). As to Karboau’s remaining retaliation, due process, equal protection, and access-to-courts claims against these individuals, Karboau failed to allege facts showing that defendants violated his rights despite opportunities to amend. See Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir.2008) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim); Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251 , 1257 (9th Cir.1997) (“[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Karboau’s claims against individual ICE agents because, despite multiple opportunities to amend and generous extensions of time, Karboau failed to allege facts showing that they violated his constitutional rights. See Morgan, 323 F.3d at 780 (elements of a Bivens claim); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635 , 638 (9th Cir.1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim if plaintiff cannot possibly win relief).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.