United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2022 Argued: June 13, 2023 Decided: July 12, 2024

No. 22-654

CLINT EDWARDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DREW GIZZI, ROBERT JOHNSEN, FRANK PENA, JOHN DOES 1-10, WALTER COOK, ANTHONY MERCURIO,

Defendants-Appellees. *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 20-cv-7371, Karas, Judge.

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption accordingly.

1 Before: PARKER, PARK, and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Clint Edwards brought claims seeking damages from court-security officers and deputy U.S. Marshals for using excessive force while restraining him in a courtroom. The district court dismissed his claims, concluding that Edwards has no cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Judge Park concurs in the judgment in a separate opinion.

Judge Robinson concurs in the judgment in a separate opinion.

Judge Parker dissents in a separate opinion.

ATHUL K. ACHARYA, Public Accountability, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

LUCAS ISSACHAROFF, Assistant United States Attorney (Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees Drew Gizzi and Robert Johnsen.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Clint Edwards brought claims seeking damages from court-security officers and deputy U.S. Marshals for using

2 excessive force while restraining him in a courtroom. The district court dismissed his claims, concluding that Edwards has no cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

3 22-654-cv Edwards v. Gizzi, et al.

PARK, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:

This case involves a straightforward application of a line of Supreme Court precedent unbroken over forty years. The district court correctly concluded that Edwards has no cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). That is because the context here—an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against officers in the United States Marshals Service and court-security personnel—“is different in a meaningful way” from the three Bivens claims the Supreme Court has recognized. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 139 (2017). Moreover, Congress has provided in the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, just the sort of alternative remedial scheme that counsels against judicial expansion of Bivens. We should follow Supreme Court precedent and avoid engaging in legislative functions.

I. BACKGROUND

In July 2018, Edwards pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). During his sentencing, he began yelling at the judge and the Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”). Edwards took an aggressive stance, raising his hands and slightly cocking his arms back, and lunged tow