William Kocol v. United States

MEMORANDUM

William G. Kocol and Timothy A. Gajew-ski appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action brought 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), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) (subject matter jurisdiction); Jensen v. City of Oxnard, 145 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1998) (qualified immunity); Pelletier v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of S.F., 968 F.2d 865, 875 (9th Cir. 1992) (substitution of the United States as a defendant). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the first cause of action on the basis of qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to allege that defendant Burnett violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741 , 131 S.Ct. 2074 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (an official violates clearly established law only if, at the time of the challenged conduct, the right’s contours were sufficiently clear that every reasonable official…