Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Judge Wilkins wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Wilkinson and Judge Motz joined.

OPINIONBY: WILKINS

OPINION:

WILKINS, Circuit Judge:

Sheryl L. Hall appeals a district court order dismissing her claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(1) (West 1994), as being precluded [**2] by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.A.). Because the CSRA constitutes the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of federal employment, we affirm.

Hall maintains that the district court erred in dismissing her Fifth Amendment Bivens claim against Scott, Tayman, and Vaden as being precluded by the CSRA. We disagree.

A Bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights by federal actors. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 395-97. In order for a Bivens remedy to be available, a court must determine that (1) Congress has not already provided an exclusive statutory remedy; (2) there are no “special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress”; and (3) there is no “explicit congressional declaration” that money damages not be awarded. [**6] Id. at 396-97; see Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423, 101 L. Ed. 2d 370, 108 S. Ct. 2460 (1988). The “special factors” concept “includes an appropriate judicial deference to indications that congressional inaction has not been inadvertent.” Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 423.

The CSRA “comprehensively overhauled the civil service system,” creating a “framework for evaluating adverse personnel actions against [federal employees].” Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 773-74, 84 L. Ed. 2d 674, 105 S. Ct. 1620 (1985). “It prescribes in great detail the protections and remedies applicable to such action, including the availability of administrative and judicial review.” United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 443, 98 L. Ed. 2d 830, 108 S. Ct. 668 (1988). A primary purpose of enacting the CSRA was “to replace the haphazard arrangements for administrative and judicial review of personnel action” that existed [*205] prior to the CSRA. Id. at 444. When the CSRA was enacted, the perception was that the existing appeals process was so lengthy and complicated that federal supervisors were [**7] discouraged from taking legitimate adverse personnel actions. See id. at 445. Further, because multiple jurisdictions had concurrent jurisdiction over actions challenging personnel decisions, there was a wide variation in decisions regarding the same or similar matters. See id. Accordingly, the CSRA was designed to eliminate this problem as well.

The Supreme Court examined the availability of a Bivens action in a federal employment context in Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 76 L. Ed. 2d 648, 103 S. Ct. 2404 (1983). In Bush, the Supreme Court determined that federal employment constituted a “special factor” warranting refusal to recognize a First Amendment Bivens claim asserted by a federal employee. See Bush, 462 U.S. at 378-80; Zimbelman v. Savage, 228 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2000). This court recently decided a similar case, the facts of which are closely analogous to the case at bar. In Zimbelman, two employees were fired from their jobs with the Air Force under suspicion of having committed various acts of misconduct, including theft and fraud. See Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 369. [**8] The employees brought suit against their supervisors and the Air Force investigators who had conducted the investigation into their misconduct, asserting several constitutional claims, including one under Bivens for a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to preserve their reputations. See id. at 370. This court affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claims, concluding that they “indisputably arose from a federal employment relationship.”

Hall contends that the CSRA does not preclude her Bivens action because although the CSRA provides for administrative or judicial review of the action taken against her, her Bivens claim is not against her supervisor. Hall’s argument is without merit, however. The salient fact here is that the wrongful acts Hall alleges were taken against her arose out of her federal employment relationship. Because they did arise out of her federal employment, Bush and Zimbelman dictate that Hall’s claim is precluded. That the CSRA does not provide the remedy that she would prefer is of no moment. See Bush, 462 U.S. at 388-90 (refusing to allow a Bivens action even though “existing remedies [did] [**9] not provide complete relief”); Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 370-71 (holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the CSRA when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the CSRA provided plaintiffs with no remedy); cf. Lombardi v. Small Bus. Admin., 889 F.2d 959, 961 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that plaintiff’s claims were precluded by CSRA because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated); Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044, 1048 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (holding that claims by federal employee were barred under Bush even though one claim was against coworkers because “the purpose of denying a private cause of action to federal employees is to ensure that they do not bypass comprehensive and carefully balanced statutory and administrative remedies in order to seek direct judicial relief”). Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed Hall’s Bivens claim.

SBD

Now it’s Daniela Deane who repeats the error made by Howard Kurtz, Eric Weiss and Charles Lane about Joe Wilson not finding evidence of Iraq seeking uranium in Niger. Deane, in a post.com story filed after the Plame/Wilson presser titled…

So many questions, so little time…

Whoa boy.  I cannot tell you how floored I am that Joe and Valerie Wilson have decided to sue pretty much everyone over their supposed "outing" in the media.  I mean they have both displayed a large amount of common sense and intell…

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/07/civil_suit_leak_1.html

$2 million… but who’s paying for that? The taxpayer! Heh.

Hey AJ, over at my blog you’ll see that Wilson registered the domain name for his legal support fund the same day that Luskin announced that Rove was in the clear. Interesting, ne?

Oh, and eh… Richard Sale reported on possible indictments including breaches of civil rights and ruining Wilson’s name… sound familiar? He wrote that article on October 26, 2005. Sounds to me like one of his sources goofed up and revealed Wilson’s plans for a civil suit. It’s all over at my blog.

PS. I caught the 1x2x6 thing too. Grossman seems to have been a major player in cleaning up for his boss and to set up the match for Wilson.

One more thing, being new to this site, I would love for somebody to provide me with a source (I don’t care if it’s Time Magazine or a post on Daily Kos) that lays out precisely how Plame was a “covert agent”. It’s been repeated so often, it’s just become “truth”. I heard it on NPR today in the car. Some reporter was giving background on the case and simply refers to Plame as having been “covert”.

…move to a little town in Utah. Start a new life. Open up a humble diner. Val gets a cheerleader outfit to keep the homefires burning. One day a sedan black sedan pulls up outside the diner…

…..

LOL. I think three years and over $2 million is a little excessive for “entertainment” don’t you? Sentences, like that without sarc tags, can be dangerous to your health, Seixon!

Carol

Valerie Plame has filed a lawsuit against Vice-President Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her h…

…