law of the forum state. Id. at 17 n. 4, 100 S.Ct. 1468. The Court emphasized that “only a uniform federal rule of survivorship will suffice to redress the constitutional deprivation here alleged and to protect against repetition of such conduct.” Id. at 23, 100 S.Ct. 1468. As we recently noted in Castaneda v. United States, 546 F.3d 682, 701 (9th Cir.2008), overruled on other grounds by Hui v. Castaneda, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1845, 176 L.Ed.2d 703 (2010), “the remedies we and the Supreme Court have held to preclude Bivens ... applied uniformly throughout the republic.” Although Castaneda is no longer good law, this observation was not addressed by the Supreme Court and comports with our analysis of the Court’s Bivens jurisprudence. See Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 414, 108 S.Ct. 2460 (<HOLDING>); Bush, 462 U.S. at 368, 103 S.Ct. 2404
holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency holding that a remedial scheme created by congress even if incapable of addressing all of plaintiffs injuries precluded a bivens action holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency holding that social security regulations and procedures precluded a bivens action holding that the courtcreated bivens remedy is unavailable when congress through the social security act provided an alternative mechanism for a plaintiff to vindicate his due process rights