Smith v. Clark

Case: 20-50916 Document: 00515835790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 26, 2021
No. 20-50916
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Lane Smith; Jennifer Taylor-Smith,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Carla Clark, Individually,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CV-675
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
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 (1971),
against Carla Clark. We have not recognized a Bivens claim in the First
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 20-50916 Document: 00515835790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2021
No. 20-50916
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 (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)).
2