Buckley

Buckley v. Meis

Good Law
76 F. App'x 192
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 23, 2003No. 03-35003; D.C. No. CV-02-02051-TSZCalifornia737 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Pro se plaintiff-appellant Richard Buckley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). On appeal, Buckley argues that his claims should not have been dismissed because: 1) it is possible to raise § 1983 claims against the federal government; 2) he substantially complied with the presentment requirements of Title VII; and 3) the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”) does not prevent him from bringing a Bivens claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 1 and we affirm.

I. Constitutional Claims

The dismissal of a § 1983 claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is reviewed de *194 novo. See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir.2003). Buckley apparently argues that, despite the general rule that § 1983 does not apply to federal officials, this court may still hold that he properly stated a claim under § 1983. This argument fails because this court’s case law clearly establishes that a § 1983 action is not available to redress actions taken under color of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.