1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 4 Justin L. Victory, Case No. 2:24-cv-2397-JAD-BNW

5 Plaintiff Order Denying Motions v. 6 ECF Nos. 15, 19 Ashlee Andrews, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Justin L. Victory is a Nevada state inmate who filed a civil-rights action under 10 Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,1 alleging that the Bank of America 11 and one of its managers, Ashlee Andrews, violated his Fourth Amendment rights by 12 calling the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department on him, falsely reporting that he 13 was passing a fraudulent cashier’s check.2 Because Victory applied to proceed in forma 14 pauperis, his claims were screened. In a report and recommendation, the magistrate 15 judge recommended that Victory’s case be dismissed because a Bivens claim is not 16 available in these circumstances.3 That report and recommendation was returned as 17 undelivered, and Victory now explains that he was “pertaining to legal matters in AZ” 18 19 20 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents,

(1971). 21 2 See generally ECF No. 5. 22 3 ECF No. 8. 1 and thus missed his chance to object to it.4 The unobjected-to recommendation was 2 adopted, this case was dismissed, and judgment was entered for the defendants.5

3 Victory filed a motion to set aside that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 60, asking the court to set aside the judgment and give him 15 days to file an 5 objection.6 A month later, when that motion had not yet been decided, he followed it up 6 with a motion or a status check.7 This court explained the status of Victory’s case and 7 advised that his motion was still pending because “this court has hundreds of motions in 8 other cases that were filed before his. . . .”8 Believing that his “case is substantive and

9 deserves attention above any motion filed after” his, he then filed a “Motion to Correct 10 any Misconstrution [sic] Relating to this Case.”9 In it, he argues that the dismissal was 11 erroneous because a “Bivens action actually can be maintained against private entities.”10 12 He cites Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko as the authority for that legal 13 proposition.11

14 Malesko actually holds exactly the opposite. In Malesko, the United States 15 Supreme Court considered “whether the implied damages action first recognized in 16 17 4 ECF No. 19. 5 ECF No. 11. 18 6 ECF No. 15. 19 7 ECF No. 17. 20 8 ECF No. 18 at 1. 9 ECF No. 19. 21 10 Id. at 2. 22 11 Id. (citing Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko,

(2001)). 1 Bivens . . . should be extended to allow recovery against a private corporation operating a 2 halfway house under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.”12 The answer was no. The

3 Court recounted that in the Bivens case, it “recognized for the first time an implied 4 private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s 5 constitutional rights.”13 Malesko argued that Bivens should be extended “to confer a 6 right of action for damages against private entities . . . .”14 The Supreme Court refused. 7 “The purpose of Bivens is to deter individual federal officers from committing 8 constitutional violations,” it explained.15 “Bivens . . . is concerned solely with deterring

9 the unconstitutional acts of individual [federal] officers.”16 10 So to state a civil-rights claim under Bivens, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right 11 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 12 alleged violation was committed by a federal officer.17 There is nothing “federal” or 13 “officer” about the targets of Victory’s claims. He is attempting to bring civil-rights

14 claims against a private, corporate bank and one of its managers. He doesn’t even allege 15 that they were acting in concert with federal actors because the cops he alleges were 16 called on him were from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.18 As the 17

12 Malesko,

. 18 13

at 66 (citing Bivens,

). 19 14

20 15 Id. at 70. 16 Id. at 71. 21 17 Van Strum v. Lawn,

(9th Cir. 1991). 22 18 See ECF No. 5 at 4. magistrate judge accurately explained in recommending dismissal of Victory’s suit, 2|| Bivens does not supply a legal basis for Victory’s claims. !” 3 So I liberally construe Victory’s “Motion to Correct any Miscontrution [sic] 4! Relating to this Case” as a supplemental motion to set aside the judgment under Rule 60, I deny both pending motions. Victory’s claims fail as a matter of law because he cannot assert Bivens claims against these private actors in this situation. As Victory has had an opportunity to present his arguments to this court, I find that he has not shown and cannot show that the dismissal of his claims was error. The law does not 9|| allow the assertion of Bivens civil-rights claims against Andrews or Bank of America 10|| under the facts presented here. 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Victory’s motion to set aside judgment motion to correct [ECF Nos. 15, 19] are DENIED. This case remains closed. No further motions may be filed in it. sree ec U.S. District Fudge Jennifer A. Dorsey 15 December 15, 2025 16 17 18 19 20 21 See ECF No. 8 at 4-5. 23