Category Archives: All Cases

The Estate of Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas v. United States

Posted on by

The Estate of Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas v. United States
No. 3:11-cv-00522-L-DHB (S.D. Cal., Third Amended Complaint filed Mar. 23, 2012)

This case challenges CBP and U.S. Border Patrol’s excessive use of force.  Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas died of a heart attack on May 28, 2010 near the San Ysidro Port of Entry after agents working for the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection beat him and shot him repeatedly with a Taser. Cell phone videos taken by witnesses show Hernandez-Rojas, a Mexican national and long-time San Diego resident, on the ground surrounded by agents and calling out for help.  He was 42 years old.

In this federal lawsuit brought under Bivens, the Federal Torts Claims Act, and the Alien Tort Claims Act, Hernandez-Rojas’s family alleges that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when agents beat him after he asked for help, using excessive force. They also allege that their father’s death has deprived his children of their 14th Amendment due process right to associate with their father.

Eight agents and four supervisors are named as defendants in the lawsuit. They have claimed that using force against Hernandez-Rojas was justified because he posed a threat to the officers.

In September 2014, the district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  In his order, U.S. District Court Judge M. James Lorenz wrote: “The sheer number of officers available at the scene demonstrates rather strongly that there was no objectively reasonable threat to the safety of any one other than Anastasio.” That decision is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit; Plaintiffs have filed a motion in the district court to declare that appeal frivolous. On December 31, 2015, the district court denied that motion, and the matter is stayed pending the resolution of Defendants’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

On November 6, 2015 the Department of Justice announced that it would not criminally prosecute the agents involved in his death, a decision that angered his family and border-rights advocates.

On March 30, 2017, the court issued an order approving a $1 million settlement, to be dispersed among Mr. Hernandez-Rojas’s five children.

In March 2016, Hernandez-Rojas’ family filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The complaint alleged several violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, including violation of the prohibition against torture, violation of the right to life and liberty, and failure to investigate, prosecute, and provide full reparations. On November 5, 2022, the Inter-American Commission conducted a hearing on the complaint. On February 14, 2023, Hernandez-Rojas’s family submitted a final written observation to the Inter-American Commission. A report with the Commission’s findings is forthcoming.

Documents:

Counsel: Iredale & Yoo, APC

Contact: Julia Yoo | (619) 233-1525

Additional Links:

Press Coverage:

Arreaga v. United States of America

Posted on by

Arreaga v. United States of America, 5:16-cv-00007 (S.D. Texas, Complaint filed January 19, 2016)

The complainant, a United States citizen, stopped at a U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint in Texas at approximately 11 a.m. on September 4, 2014. He told the agents that he was a United States citizen and showed them his citizenship card. The agents incorrectly believed that he was carrying drugs in his vehicle. They detained and questioned him and disassembled his truck. No drugs were found. Without probable cause, they continued to detain him for a total of approximately 17 hours, finally releasing him at about 4 a.m. the morning following his initial stop. In January 2016, Plaintiff Julio Adolfo Arreaga filed a complaint in the S.D. Tex. Discovery concluded as of December 2016.

The parties agreed to Court-hosted mediation on May 16, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the case was dismissed following a settlement between the parties.

Counsel: Javier Maldonado

Contact: Javier Maldonado | (210) 277-1603 | jmaldonado.law@gmail.com

FTCA Administrative Complaint of Pregnant Minor

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint of Pregnant Minor (dated July 7, 2014)

Claimant, who is a minor, was taken into Border Patrol custody in May, 2014. Shortly after being taken into custody, agents took her to a hospital where it was determined that she was five months pregnant and in good health. She was released by the hospital back to the custody of Border Patrol. Sometime after her return to the Border Patrol station, she began to experience abdominal pain. She asked to be taken back to the hospital, but agents refused. The agents insisted that she remain seated even though the pain was so great she needed to lie down. Her water broke and she began to bleed. The agents refused to render aid or take her back to the hospital. Finally, another agent came to her aid and took her to the hospital. She alleges that she lost the baby because she did not receive immediate aid. The complainant decided not to file a federal lawsuit.

Counsel: Javier Maldonado

Contact: Javier Maldonado | (210) 277-1603 | jmaldonado.law@gmail.com

Osorio v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Osorio v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 8:14-cv-01758-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 4, 2014)

On June 6, 2014, Mr. Osorio filed with CBP a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking “any and all records” under his name.  Mr. Osorio sought the information in order to obtain records from an incident at the border several years earlier, which potentially affected his eligibility to apply for lawful permanent resident status.  In general, with some exceptions, the FOIA statute requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 business days.  After having waited five months for CBP to produce his records, Mr. Osorio filed a lawsuit seeking a court order forcing CBP to conduct a search and produce records related to his request.  Immediately after filing, CBP produced the documents. Mr. Osorio and CBP subsequently settled the case and jointly moved to dismiss it, with the government agreeing to pay costs and attorney fees.

Counsel: Stacy Tolchin

Contact: Stacy Tolchin | 213-622-7450 | stacy@tolchinimmigration.com

Jacobson et al. v. DHS et al.

Posted on by

Jacobson et al. v. DHS et al., Nos. 14-02485 (D. Ariz., filed Nov. 20, 2014) and 16-17199 (9th Cir., filed Nov. 30, 2016)

This is a First Amendment case brought against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and certain named Border Patrol agents for their interference with Plaintiffs’ right to protest, observe, and record law enforcement activity at the U.S. Border Patrol’s interior checkpoint on Arivaca Road in Arivaca, Arizona near the U.S.-Mexico border. Although CBP claimed that the Arivaca Road checkpoint was temporary, it had been in continuous existence since 2007. Many Arivaca residents had to drive through the checkpoint every day to reach jobs, schools, doctors, and shops.

Plaintiffs are members of a community organization called People Helping People (“PHP”), which organized a “checkpoint monitoring campaign” in response to public complaints that Border Patrol agents were violating individuals’ civil rights at the checkpoint. A number of these incidents were detailed in an administrative complaint filed with the DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

As part of the checkpoint monitoring campaign, community volunteers stood on a public right-of-way adjacent to the Arivaca Road checkpoint and took notes, photographs, and video recordings of Border Patrol agents’ conduct to collect data on checkpoint activity and deter abuse. Other individuals, also standing on the public right of way, held up signs protesting the checkpoint. Soon after the volunteers began their monitoring activity, Border Patrol agents, with the assistance of local law enforcement, ordered the monitors to move to a spot much farther away from the checkpoint and forbade the monitors from entering the area immediately surrounding the checkpoint. The agents eventually cordoned off this area, unilaterally deeming it “the enforcement zone.” Under threat of arrest, the monitors and protestors complied with the agents’ order to relocate. From outside the enforcement zone, however, it was virtually impossible for the monitors to observe agents’ conduct at the checkpoint.

Plaintiffs brought this suit, alleging that Defendants interfered with their First Amendment right to protest, observe, and record law enforcement activity at the checkpoint, as well as retaliated against them for engaging in constitutionally protected activity. Plaintiffs sought an injunction that would prevent Border Patrol agents from restricting their monitoring activity on the public right of way near the Arivaca Checkpoint.

In January 2015, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. After oral arguments in April, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion in September 2015. Defendants then moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. In September 2016, the presiding magistrate judge granted Defendants’ motion and entered judgment against Plaintiffs, holding that the Arivaca checkpoint was a nonpublic forum and that the restriction placed on Plaintiffs’ speech was a valid “time, place, and manner restriction.”

Plaintiffs appealed in November 2016. Briefing was completed in August 2017 and oral argument held in December 2017, in San Francisco.

On February 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that the limited record before the district court did not permit it to conclude that the enforcement zone was a nonpublic forum or, if it was, whether the government satisfied the requirements for excluding Plaintiffs from a nonpublic forum. The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to allow discovery to proceed.

On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for sanctions on the basis of Defendants’ spoliation of relevant evidence and submission of a declaration without the requisite personal knowledge. After briefing and oral argument, the magistrate judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions without prejudice.

On June 14, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice. The case is now closed. At the end of July 2021, the original Arivaca Checkpoint was dismantled.

Documents:

Related documents:

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona; ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties; Covington and Burling

In Re: Honduran minor

Posted on by

In re: Honduran minor

In this matter, a Honduran citizen in removal proceedings moved to terminate the proceedings based upon the treatment he received as a minor in both CBP and ICE custody. In 2013, when he was 17 years old, he traveled alone from Honduras to the United States. Once in the United States, he was apprehended by a Border Patrol agent. He informed the agent of his age, but the agent responded that he did not believe him. Although he was initially placed in a holding cell with children, he was soon moved to one with only adult men, none of whom were related to him. He was not provided with the notice of rights that CBP is required to serve on minors. Instead, he was coerced into signing a voluntary departure form which incorrectly listed his birth date as a year earlier, thus implying that he was 18 rather than his actual age of 17.

After signing the voluntary departure order, he was made to shower in a cell with adult males. Soon after this, he was put on a plane and transferred to ICE custody in New Jersey. In all, he spent 8 days detained with adult men before finally convincing ICE officials that he was a minor.

In his motion to terminate, the Honduran citizen alleged that CBP and ICE officials violated his rights under the INA, federal regulations, and the settlement agreement in Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 296 (1993). He argued that termination was a proper remedy because the rights that were violated were fundamental ones; because the officials conduct shocked the conscience; and because he suffered prejudice affecting his rights and the fundamental fairness of the removal proceeding.  Following the approval of the Honduran citizen’s I-360 petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, the parties voluntarily terminated this action.

Counsel: The Door, Legal Service Center

Contact: Anthony Enriquez and Elizabeth Jordan | (212) 941-9090, ext. 3426 | ejordan@door.org

Castro Romo v. United States of America

Posted on by

Castro Romo v. United States of America, No. 4:12-041 (D. Ariz. Feb. 6, 2015)

On February 6, 2015, the district court awarded the plaintiff, Jesus Castro Romo, $497,943 as damages for injuries he suffered when he was shot by a Border Patrol agent. Following a five day trial, the court found that the Border Patrol agent, who was on horseback, caught up with Mr. Castro and others as they were walking through the Arizona desert. Mr. Castro ran from the agent, who pursued him. Upon catching up to him, the agent threatened Castro, yelled obscenities at him, hit him with the horse’s reins, had the horse poke him from behind, and ultimately shot Castro in his lower back. The court credited Mr. Castro’s version of events and rejected as less credible the agent’s version that Castro was about to throw a rock at him—both because the agent changed his story over time and also because the agent previously had been convicted of taking a bribe while working for the Border Patrol.

Based upon these facts, the court concluded that the agent had committed an intentional battery under Arizona law; that his use of a gun constituted the use of deadly force; that he was not justified in using deadly force; and that the unresolved question of whether Castro had been operating as a “coyote” did not change the fact that it was unreasonable for the agent to use deadly force under these circumstances. The court considered Castro’s action in running from the agent and reduced the damage award by 10%.

The decision sets out in detail the evidence supporting the various types of damages and the court’s calculations of these damages, including past and future medical and psychiatric expenses, economic damages, and pain and suffering. On March 5, 2015, Mr. Castro filed a motion requesting that the court amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter a new judgment increasing the amount of damages awarded. On July 21, 2015, the court agreed to recalculate Mr. Castro’s damages for future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life to account for the effect of inflation. The court increased the original damages award by nearly $20,000 to a new total of $516, 320.82.

Counsel: Risner and Graham

Contact: William J. Risner | (520) 622-7494

In the Matter of XXXXX

Posted on by

In the Matter of XXXXX – Redacted Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings (based on custody conditions and failure to report child abuse)

Respondent, a 15 year old unaccompanied minor, was arrested by border patrol agents in Texas. CBP detained her in an icebox, and failed to provide her with sufficient food, water, clothing and shelter or medical assistance for approximately eleven days. Respondent was not permitted to shower, brush her teeth or go outside.  She was given only a nylon blanket and forced to sleep on the cold floor in a room crowded with other people.  She became physically sick with cough and fever.

Respondent subsequently was placed in removal proceedings. She subsequently moved to terminate the proceedings, arguing that the agency’s conduct violated the Fifth Amendment, the  terms of the settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, 8 USC 1232(b) (requiring transfer of unaccompanied minors to custody of the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours), and that the agency’s failure to report the conduct as child abuse constituted a crime under 18 USC 2258.  The immigration judge denied the motion to terminate proceedings on February 4, 2015.  The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently denied an interlocutory appeal.

Counsel: Bryan Johnson

Contact:  Amoachi & Johnson, PLLC | (631) 647-9701 | Bryan@amjolaw.com

Hernandez v. United States of America, sub nom. Hernandez v. Mesa

Posted on by

Hernandez v. United States of America, Nos. 12-50217, 12-50301 (5th Cir.), sub. nom, Hernandez v. Mesa, No. 15-118 (U.S.)

On June 7, 2010, Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, a fifteen-year-old Mexican national, was playing with a group of friends on the Mexican side of the border near the Paso del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas. The boy and his friends were playing a game in which they ran up the incline of a cement culvert, touched the fence separating the US and Mexico and then ran back down the incline. While they were playing, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. stopped one of Hernandez’s friends, and Hernandez retreated and observed from beneath the pillars of the Paso del Norte Bridge (on the Mexico side). Agent Mesa, standing on U.S. soil, fired at least two gun shots from within the country. One of the bullets hit the boy in the face and killed him.

The boy’s parents sued, raising claims against the United States, Agent Mesa, and unknown federal employees. The district court dismissed the claims for various reasons. On June 30, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court in part and affirmed in part. Although the Court affirmed parts of the district court’s decision, significantly, it ruled that the boys’ parents could bring a Fifth Amendment claim against Agent Mesa. In so holding, the court determined that the child had a Fifth Amendment right to be free from actions that “shock the conscience.” Both the United States and Agent Mesa asked the Fifth Circuit to rehear (reconsider) the court’s decision.

On November 5, 2014, the court granted en banc rehearing and vacated its earlier decision. On January 21, 2015, the en banc panel heard oral argument. On April 24, 2015, the Fifth Circuit issued an en banc opinion. On the question of the violation of Sergio’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, the court held that Plaintiffs could not assert a Fourth Amendment claim because Sergio had no significant voluntary connection to the United States and because was physically in Mexico when Agent Mesa shot him. The court further held that Plaintiffs could not assert a Fifth Amendment claim because, at the time of the shooting, no case law reasonably warned Agent Mesa that the prohibition on excessive force applied in this situation.

On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Court first addressed the Bivens claim. It determined that a recently decided Supreme Court decision—Ziglar v. Abbasi, which laid out special factors which counsel “hesitation” in applying a Bivens remedy—would inform the analysis of the Bivens question. The Court remanded to give the parties “the opportunity to brief and argue [Abbasi’s] significance” in answering that question. Second, the Court declined to resolve the Fourth Amendment issue before the Court of Appeals could weigh in under the guidance provided by Abbasi. Finally, with respect to the Fifth Amendment claims regarding Mesa’s qualified immunity, the Court held the Fifth Circuit erred when it granted qualified immunity because Hernandez was a noncitizen “who had no significant voluntary connection to…the United States.” Since that fact was not known to Mesa at the time he shot Hernandez, extending qualified immunity was not appropriate. The Court further declined to address the government’s arguments that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity regardless of his uncertainty about Hernandez’s nationality at the time of the shooting, and that petitioners’ claim was not cognizable at all under the Fifth Amendment.

On remand from the Supreme Court following its decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 U.S. 1843 (2017), the Fifth Circuit en banc held that a cross-border shooting presented a “new context” for which federal courts do not have the authority to find an implied damages action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the FBI, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As a result, the Fifth Circuit dismissed plaintiffs’ Bivens claims. On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time.

On February 25, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that Bivens was unavailable applying the two-part test outlined in Abbasi. The court first determined that the Hernandez family’s Bivens claims arose in a new context. Turning to the second step of the test, the court found “multiple, related factors” counseling hesitation about extending Bivens. The Hernandez family’s case implicates foreign relations, the court reasoned, because of the “legitimate and important interests” of both the United States and Mexico “that may be affected by the way in which this matter is handled.” “It is not our task,” the court said, “to arbitrate between them.” The court also held that the case implicates the “conduct of agents positioned at the border,” which has a “clear and strong connection to national security.” Writing in dissent, Justice Ginsburg argued that holding a rogue, low-ranking officer accountable for killing a teenager would not undermine U.S. diplomacy or national security.

Press Coverage

Edwards v. United States of America

Posted on by

Edwards v. United States of America, No. 0:13-cv-02336-JRT-JJK (D. Minn., filed Aug. 26, 2013)

Adijat Edwards arrived at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport from Nigeria.  U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) officers detained her upon arrival.  The officers confiscated $4,000 worth of her jewelry and, days later, forced her to withdraw $1,200 in cash using her bank card.  The officers told Ms. Edwards that the money was necessary to pay for her return flight to Nigeria as part of expedited removal proceedings.

Edwards later sued the United States for the torts of conversion and negligence based on the CBP officers’ misconduct.  The United States filed a motion to dismiss, which Edwards opposed.  The Court granted the government’s motion in most respects, but allowed the claim for conversion of property to move forward.  Following the Court’s decision, the parties reached a settlement. The Department of Homeland Security brought Edwards back to the United States; thereafter, Edwards obtained her green card and recently naturalized.

Counsel: Richard L. Breitman | (612) 822-4724 | breitman@ix.netcom.co