Judge Eric Vitaliano
Eng was sentenced, in 2008, to five years probation after pleading guilty to a civil rights violation. An April 2009 probation modification, with his consent, subjected Eng’s electronic activity to monitoring. Under a March 2010, modification, Eng consented to electronic home monitoring. On March 4, 2011, that probation condition was further modified to require home confinement without electronic monitoring. Eng’s probation expired in July 2013. His Aug. 23, 2013, pro se 42 USC §1983 action charged defendant probation officers with constitutional violations. Among other things, they allegedly restricted him from accessing violent video games and information about military-grade firearms. District court dismissed Eng’s complaint for failure to state a claim under §1983 or Bivens. The probation officers’ findings begin the condition modification process, which Eng had a right to contest. Eng did not allege that any probation modifications were ordered over his objections. Further, he consented to the modifications. He agreed to a condition requiring his “[c]ooperat[ion] with the United States Probation Department’s Computer and Internet Monitoring Program.” Also, Eng’s claim that two officers mistreated him were “at best, frivolous.”
