SMITH v. CLARK (2021)

Lane Smith and Jennifer Taylor-Smith appeal the district court's dismissal of their First Amendment retaliation claim 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), against Carla Clark. We have not recognized a Bivens claim in the First Amendment retaliation context, and we need not decide this issue here. Because Smith and Taylor-Smith failed to meaningfully allege the claim or to plead enough facts to establish its facial plausibility, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged․ Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.