Whether a Bivens remedy remains available for warrantless searches and seizures of property by federal officers in joint task-force operations when alternative remedies are discretionary or inadequate

No question identified. : To the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: In accordance with this Court’s Rules 13.5, 22, 30.2, and 30.3, Applicant Lesly Pompy, M.D., respectfully requests that the time to file its petition for a writ of certiorari be extended for 60 days, to and including Monday, November 24, 2025-within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered its opinion on May 23, 2025 (Exhibit B) and denied rehearing on June 27, 2025 (Exhibit A). Absent an extension, the petition is currently due Sunday, September 25, 2025. On July 15, 2025, a MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE was filed. BACKGROUND The forthcoming petition will ask whether (i) Bivens extends to joint-task-force searches that would otherwise leave victims without a federal remedy; (ii) qualified immunity applies where governing law was clearly established by binding Sixth Circuit precedent; (iii) the Westfall Act forecloses RICO claims against private parties acting under color of federal authority; and (iv), The Sixth, First, and Eighth Circuits disagree on whether Bivens applies to warrantless property searches, thus causing a circuit split. The Sixth Circuit court of appeals affirmed dismissal of Petitioner’s claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, holding that (1) no new Bivens remedy lies for Fourth-Amendment violations arising from a joint statefederal opioid-task-force raid; (2) the individual federal agents are entitled to qualified immunity; (3) the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, bars suit against state and private actors alleged to have conspired with the agents; and (4) failed to consider the impact of the misuse of federal funds in proprietary joint public /private selective prosecutions. I. UNRESOLVED OUTSTADING ISSUES The forthcoming petition will address recurring and important questions, including: 1. Bivens / Fourth Amendment: Whether, after Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), a Bivens remedy remains available for warrantless searches and seizures of property by federal officers (including in joint task-force operations) when alternative remedies are discretionary or inadequate. 2. Qualified Immunity: Whether qualified immunity applies where binding circuit law clearly established the relevant Fourth Amendment constraints, including limitations on warrant scope and warrantless property seizures later in the day following a morning search. See, e.g., Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012). . Westfall Act and Private/State Co-Conspirators: Whether the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, forecloses civil RICO liability or other federal claims against private parties and state officials alleged to have conspired with federal agents in joint operations, where the gravamen is fabrication, pretext, or misuse of processes. See Holmes v. SIPC, 503 U.S. 258 (1992); cf. DeGuelle v. Camilli, 724 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2013). . “New Context” Analysis: Whether the Sixth Circuit misapplied Egbert’s “new context” framework by focusing on the defendants’ titles (e.g., DEA Diversion Investigator) rather than the core Fourth Amendment violation, contrary to the emphasis on the nature of the constitutional claim. See Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020). . Forfeiture / Due Process (Equitable Sharing): Whether seizures executed through the Equitable Sharing regime comport with due process and excessiveness limits when property is taken without timely post-deprivation process and when private entities benefit from the seizure program. See Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. (2019); United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). . Applicant anticipates also addressing whether executivebranch policy (including Executive Order 14119 (May 9, 2025)) bears on the legality of alleged regulatory weaponization in joint state-federal operations, a