Haneef Shakeel Jackson-Bey v. United States Department of Justice

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 22, 2025*
Decided December 22, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3193
HANEEF SHAKEEL JACKSON-BEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:22-cv-00469-JPH-MG
James Patrick Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Haneef Shakeel Jackson-Bey, a federal prisoner, appeals the judgment dismissing
his civil complaint for damages against unknown federal agents. We affirm the
judgment.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-3193 Page 2
Jackson-Bey sought to bring an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that officials of the United States
defamed and stigmatized him by wrongly identifying him in a public press release and
official documents as a child sex trafficker. (He acknowledges that he was convicted of
sex trafficking an adult woman.) He asserted that he has been unfairly singled out as a
so-called “class of one.” He sought injunctive relief and monetary damages.
At screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court allowed Jackson-Bey to
proceed on a class-of-one equal protection claim for injunctive relief (and substituted
the U.S. Department of Justice as the sole defendant) but dismissed his damages claim
as an improper extension under Bivens. The court explained that Jackson-Bey’s damages
claim presented a new Bivens context and that special factors weighed against extending
the remedy in this context—particularly, his ability to vindicate his rights through his
claim for injunctive relief.
On appeal, Jackson-Bey rehashes his allegations and does not grapple with the
district court’s determination that his damages claim was not cognizable under Bivens.
But the district court properly dismissed this claim. Expanding the Bivens remedy is a
“disfavored judicial activity,” and Jackson-Bey may not proceed if his claim arises in
a new context and special factors counsel against expansion. Goldey v. Fields, 606 U.S.
942, 944 (2025) (internal citations omitted). This case presents a new context—a class-of-
one equal protection claim is markedly different from cases in which the Supreme
Court has recognized a Bivens remedy. Id. (citing Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 139
(2017); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979); Bivens,
403 U.S. 388). And special factors counsel against expanding the Bivens remedy here:
Jackson-Bey could pursue an injunction to have the defendants remove the language
about children from their press release and other documents. See Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 144
(acknowledging that injunctive relief was an adequate alternative to a Bivens remedy).
Jackson-Bey might deem injunctive relief to be inadequate, but “whether a given
remedy is adequate is a legislative determination that must be left to Congress, not the
federal courts.” Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 498 (2022).
We have considered Jackson-Bey’s remaining arguments, but none merits
discussion.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --