See Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n”), p. 20. However, as to all of the personally-sued defendants, Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts that, if true, state a plausible claim that Defendants violated any property interest in employment. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1940-41. Plaintiff's allegations strictly relate to the breach of confidentiality caused by the release of his deposition testimony, not to the loss of any employment interest. Compl. ¶ 68 (“[Defendants] unconstitutionally deprive[d] Plaintiff of his unambiguous entitlement to confidentiality under the [CAA].”) 4 . Defendants also have construed plaintiff's argument as one contending that defendants violated plaintiff's substantive due process rights, specifically, his right to privacy. See (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 7 .The CAA incorporates several provisions of
holding that in a bivens action service upon employee in his official capacity does not amount to service in his individual capacity holding the privacy act to constitute a special factor precluding a bivens remedy recognizing a bivens remedy for undocumented immigrants who were subjects of a raid by federal immigration officials reasoning that if a bivens remedy were precluded the present plaintiffs would have no forum in which to seek a remedy for the defendants alleged constitutional violations recognizing the civil service reform act as a special factor precluding a bivens remedy holding that the csra precludes even those bivens claims for which the act prescribes no alternative remedy because it found no inadvertence by congress in omitting the remedy