Kristen Mcmenamy Valentino

Before: NEWMAN, WHITTINGTON and KOGAN, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Honorable Robert E. DeMascio, District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation

Moffitt v. Bowen, 782 F.Supp. 971 (W.D.Ky.1988); see also Owens v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 262, 265-67 (10th Cir.1984) (holding Bivens action against a Secretary of Health and Human Services barred where plaintiff in Bivens claim failed to demonstrate Congress made "particularly clear" statement of intention to abrogate atacs); cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686-87, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (restating "specific intent" requirement for holding substantive component of Ex parte Young damages action nonjusticiable). Any violations of the equal protection rights alleged in Moffitt were not redressable by the Bivens remedy. See Rodriguez v. Taylor, 768 F.2d 1338, 1352 n. 1 (5th Cir.1985) (invalidating Bivens damage award for deprivation of equal protection), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1233, 89 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477, 103 S.Ct. 864, 878, 74 L.Ed.