Pretty bad, says the Tenth Circuit, in recognizing that a Bivens claim is not available because the US Marshal Service is different from the ATF predecessor with a different statutory mission and internal grievances suffice. The court cites Byrd v. Lamb in discussing (but not relying on) the meaningfulness of the events happening inside or outside the plaintiff's home.
The opinion, written by a GWB appointee, takes pains to highlight (including through choice of language) how ridiculous this seems but how hamstrung they are by the Court's recent decisions.
Keep an eye for this in illustrating the back-and-forth between SCOTUS and lower courts. SCOTUS often will do something, including narrowing some area of law, that the lower courts run with to narrow even further, too much for SCOTUS's taste. SCOTUS will take a case to come out the other way to rebalance things a bit. We can understand recent qualified immunity decisions (stay tuned in two weeks) this way. We can understand Talevski (one § 1983 and laws claims) this way. So do not be surprised if the Court takes a case similar to this one as an opportunity to signal to lower courts not to go too far afield. Or to finally kill Bivens once and for all.
