Category Archives: All Cases

Garcia De La Paz v. Coy et al.

Posted on by

Garcia De La Paz v. Coy et al., No. cv-00957 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 9, 2012) sub nom. Garcia de la Paz et al. v. Coy et al.  No. 15-888 (U.S.)

Alejandro Garcia De La Paz was riding home from work in Texas in the passenger seat of his co-worker’s truck, with two other coworkers riding in the backseat, when they were pulled over by two Border Patrol vehicles using their emergency flashers. The two agents approached the truck on both sides of the car and, without explaining the reason for the stop, asked whether the passengers were U.S. citizens. Upon hearing Mr. Garcia’s answer, the agent opened Mr. Garcia’s door, grabbed him by the arm, pulled him out of the truck, and brought him to his patrol car.

At the time of the stop, the agents were not patrolling the U.S. border and had no reasonable suspicion that the driver of the car, Mr. Garcia, or the other two passengers had violated or were violating any law. The agents also had no reason to believe that Mr. Garcia and his co-workers were noncitizens, had recently come from a border area, or were in violation of any immigration law. Instead, the agents stopped Mr. Garcia and his co-workers solely because of their Hispanic appearance.

Mr. Garcia seeks damages from the individual agents for the violation of his constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, and from the United States for his unlawful arrest by the agents.

The district court denied the individual agents’ request for qualified immunity. The agents appealed this denial of qualified immunity to the Fifth Circuit, raising two issues:

  1. Whether the district court improperly extended to a “new context” the remedy for unconstitutional conduct by a federal agent first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and
  2. Whether the agents were entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

The parties fully briefed these issues. The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers’ Guild and the American Immigration Council submitted an amicus brief addressing the Bivens issue. Amici argued that the plaintiff’s claims fell within Bivens’ core holding and purpose; the Immigration and Nationality Act did not serve as an alternate remedial scheme that would compensate him for his injuries; there were no special factors counseling against a Bivens remedy in a case such as this; and the defendants’ position would create virtual immunity for unconstitutional conduct by immigration agents.

The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on September 3, 2014. On May 15, 2015, it reversed the district court, holding instead that a Bivens action was not available to redress the Border Patrol agents’ violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of an undocumented noncitizen. Notwithstanding the traditional Fourth Amendment claim presented , the court found that it presented a new “context” for a Bivens claim. It refused to extend Bivens to this new context, finding that removal proceedings provided an alternative remedial scheme for the plaintiff. It also found that special factors cautioned against such an extension.

The Fifth Circuit, sua sponte, took a vote as to whether to rehear the case en banc. Only four judges voted in favor and on October 14, 2015, the Court denied rehearing en banc. Three judges dissented from this denial in a strongly worded opinion which emphasized that this case fell squarely within the holding of Bivens.

In January 2016, de la Paz filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 15-888).  Briefing on the petition for writ of certiorari ended on June 1, 2016.  The petition was initially distributed to the Court for its June 16, 2016 conference, but was rescheduled on June 6, 2016. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

Counsel: Mayer Brown LLP and De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz, LLP

Contact: David Armendáriz| 210.534.1844 | davida@dmcausa.com

Mireles v. Riano, et al.

Posted on by

Mireles v. United States Customs and Border Protection Agent Riano in his individual capacity and the United States of America, No. 1:13-cv-00197 (S.D. Tex., filed Oct. 21, 2013)

Laura Mireles brought this lawsuit against the United States and a CBP officer for violations of her Fourth Amendment rights as well as Texas state law after the officer used unwarranted force and physical abuse before arresting her without any justification at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Ms. Mireles is small in stature, approximately 5’1” tall and 100 pounds, and has a visible malformation of her hands and feet. She has worked at a store on the U.S. side of an international bridge in Brownsville, near the CBP inspection station, since 2005. On November 5, 2012, Ms. Mireles crossed to the Mexican side of the bridge for roughly 15 minutes to pick up keys to lock the store. After she closed the store, CBP Officer Riano stopped Ms. Mireles and searched her car. Ms. Mireles did not interfere with the search and no illegal items were found. Yet the officer became agitated and reacted violently when Ms. Mireles asked him about his search of her handbag. He grabbed her with both hands and threw her onto the ground with such force that her jeans ripped open at the knee and she suffered a large knee wound as well as several cuts and abrasions on her elbows; the officer put his full weight—roughly double that of her own—on Ms. Mireles’s small frame and handcuffed her so tightly that the fire department later had to be summoned to cut the handcuffs from her wrists. Ms. Mireles, who was understandably confused, scared, and crying, asked the agent to explain what was happening. He responded by threatening to hit her if she didn’t “shut up.” After being treated by paramedics for her injuries, Ms. Mireles was released from custody without being charged with an offense.

Ms. Mireles first filed a formal administrative complaint with CBP in March 2013, seeking damages for the serious harm she suffered as a result of Officer Riano’s unlawful actions. That complaint was denied a little more than a month later without explanation. Ms. Mireles subsequently filed suit in federal district court, alleging claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional claims against Officer Riano pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that it had not waived sovereign immunity under the FTCA based on the customs-duty exception set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2860(c). Officer Riano sought dismissal based on qualified immunity. Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the FTCA claims because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity under the customs-duty exception for “[a]ny claim arising in respect of …the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” 28 U.S.C. § 2860(c), The Court denied Officer Riano’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that Riano had “violated Mireles’s established constitutional rights,” and was thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

On May 3, 2016, the district court stayed the case pending the outcome of Simmons v. Himmelreich, a Supreme Court case dealing with whether the dismissal of a claim against the U.S. on the basis of an FTCA exception effectively bars separate Bivens actions against individual federal employees because of the FTCA’s judgment bar provision. The Supreme Court unanimously held in June 2016 that the FTCA’s judgment bar provision does not apply, and thus does not affect the claims against the individual defendants. On July 29, 2016, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding Defendant Riano was not entitled to qualified immunity and recommending the denial of his motion for summary judgment. On September 15, 2016, the court adopted the report and recommendation, and in October of 2016, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case.

Press:

Counsel: ACLU of Texas | Law Office of Gilberto Hinojosa & Associates, P.C. | University of Texas School of Law Civil Rights Clinic

Contact: Tom Hargis | ACLU of Texas | 832.291.4776 | media@aclutx.org (press)
Edgar Saldivar | ACLU of Texas | esaldivar@aclutx.org (legal)

Sanchez, et al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol, et al.

Posted on by

Sanchez, et al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol, et al. No. 12-00735 (W.D. Wash., filed Apr. 26, 2012)

In this class action, three U.S. citizen plaintiffs challenged U.S. Border Patrol’s practice of routinely stopping vehicles on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula and interrogating occupants about their immigration status based solely on the occupants’ racial and ethnic appearance, in violation of their constitutional rights. On behalf of themselves and others who have been subjected to similar stops, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue an injunction ordering Border Patrol to halt all such stops until its agents on the Peninsula have received training and demonstrated, through testing, that they understand the constitutional and other legal requirements necessary to stop and detain an individual.

In September 2013, the plaintiffs and Border Patrol reached a settlement in which Border Patrol acknowledged that its agents on the Olympic Peninsula must base vehicle stops away from the border on reasonable suspicion that an individual may be involved in violating the law.

All Port Angeles Border Patrol agents will be required to receive an additional training in Fourth Amendment protections, including those related to vehicle stops. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. In addition, for 18 months, Border Patrol will provide reports to plaintiffs’ attorneys documenting all stops in the Olympic Peninsula. Finally, Border Patrol also committed to complying with judicial decisions setting limits on stops and interrogations and to abiding by Department of Homeland Security guidance on the use of race or ethnicity in performing its duties.

Press:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State | Perkins Coie LLP

Contact: Matt Adams | NWIRP | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

FTCA Administrative Complaint Regarding Woman Who Suffered Stroke While in CBP Custody

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint Regarding Woman Who Suffered Stroke While in CBP Custody (filed Mar. 12, 2013)

Ms. Takem-aishetu is a 63-year-old woman who has lived in New York for eight years.  She works as the primary caregiver of a 96-year-old disabled widow, supports her orphaned grandson, and always pays her taxes.  She is a devout religious woman who has no criminal record.  In March 2011, Ms. Takem-aishetu was returning home from a cousin’s funeral in Minnesota when her bus made a routine stop in Toledo, Ohio.  There, a Border Patrol (BP) agent boarded the parked bus, a gun visible in his holster, and questioned her about her immigration status. Ms. Takem-aishetu was arrested and placed in a BP vehicle where she was forced to wait for eight hours without food and water.  When she asked to use the bathroom, an agent escorted her at gunpoint and waited outside the open door.

Ms. Takem-aishetu finally was taken to the Sandusky Bay Processing Center close to midnight, where she spent another several hours in questioning and processing, her leg shackled to a bench.  Eventually, she was placed in a small cell with room only to sit.  After repeatedly asking agents to use the bathroom, Ms. Takem-aishetu could wait no longer and urinated on herself.  She was forced to sit all night in her urine-soaked jeans until being transferred to immigration detention at the county jail the next morning.

Ms. Takem-aishetu was extremely embarrassed about her treatment by BP and ICE agents.  She feared their threats to deport her, knowing that she would be abandoning her 96-year-old employer without care and her orphaned grandson without any financial support.  Suffering from intense stress and fear, Ms. Takem-aishetu fell ill while at the jail with nausea, dizziness, and weakness in the left side of her body.  At the hospital, doctors determined that she had suffered an acute stroke.

Ms. Takem-aishetu never had any health problems before her detention.  After an extensive medical workup, her primary care physician determined that she did not exhibit any of the risk factors for a stroke, and that it was directly connected to the tremendous stress of her detention and treatment.  Ms. Takem-aishetu continues to suffer from the lasting effects of the stroke, with near-constant pain, numbness, and partial paralysis on the left side of her body.  She relies on a cane to walk, and her speech is impaired; these changes have severely affected her way of life.  Ms. Takem-aishetu seeks damages for her mistreatment.

The government failed to respond to the administrative complaint within the six-month deadline. Ms. Takem-aishetu decided not to file a federal complaint.

Press:

Counsel: Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School

Contact: Zsuzsanna Toth | 212. 790. 0411 | toth@yu.edu

Betsy Ginsberg | 347. 683. 2387 | betsy.ginsberg@yu.edu

Askins and Ramirez v. DHS et al.

Posted on by

Askins and Ramirez v. Department of Homeland Security et al., Nos. 12-CV-2600 W BLM (S.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2012) and 16-55719 (9th Cir., filed May 17, 2016)

This case is about preserving the fundamental First Amendment right to photograph and monitor publicly visible law enforcement activity and challenging CBP’s abusive behavior towards those who seek to exercise this right at or near ports of entry.

Ray Askins is a U.S. citizen and environmental activist. While standing on a public street in Calexico (inside the United States), he took photographs of the exterior of the Calexico Port of Entry building to illustrate a presentation he planned to give on vehicle emissions at ports of entry. Christian Ramirez is a U.S. citizen and human rights activist who, while standing on the U.S. side of the border, photographed male CBP officers improperly frisking female travelers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.

When they took their photographs, both Mr. Askins and Mr. Ramirez were on the United States side of the border, in areas open to the public. The matters they photographed were publicly visible. In both cases, CBP officers detained, harassed, and threatened them, temporarily confiscated their cameras, and deleted their photographs. CBP officers also physically abused Mr. Askins.

This case seeks to prevent CBP from interfering with or otherwise suppressing the public’s lawful recording of federal public activities.

In September 2013, the district court denied in part and granted in part the government’s motion to dismiss. The government then filed a motion for clarification of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. In April 2014, the district court granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion. In this order, the district court reaffirmed its First Amendment analysis in its September 2013 order on the government’s motion to dismiss. The court, however, ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs relating to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims. The parties filed supplemental briefs in late spring 2014.

In January 2015, the district court issued another order granting the government’s motion in part. This order addressed Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, and invited Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs did so; once more, the government moved to dismiss, and Plaintiffs opposed.

In March 2016, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit; they filed their opening brief on September 26, 2016. The CATO Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. Appellate briefing was completed in February 2017. In February 2018, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on Plaintiff’s appeal to S.D. Cal’s dismissal of the first amended complaint.

On August 14, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion and reversed the district court’s ruling, ordering the case to be remanded for discovery. The government filed an answer on March 8, 2019, and the parties spent several months in active discovery. In September 2020, a final settlement was entered and the case was dismissed.

If you would like to understand your rights under the settlement, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/you-have-the-right-to-record-law-enforcement-officers-including-at-the-border.

If you believe your First Amendment rights have been violated while photographing or recording at a land Port of Entry in the United States, please submit an intake with the ACLU using this online form: https://action.aclu.org/webform/help-us-hold-cbp-officials-accountable.

Counsel: ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP; First Amendment Coalition

Contact:  David Loy | First Amendment Coalition | dloy@firstamendmentcoalition.org

FTCA Administrative Complaint Against the United States Denouncing Hieleras

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint Against the United States Denouncing Hieleras (filed Mar. 12, 2013)

Jose Alberto* was apprehended at the United States Texas border by Customs and Border Protection and was told by an agent that he was being taken to a “hielera” (“freezer” or “icebox”). Mr. Alberto was placed in a small, freezing cold holding cell with approximately thirty men. The temperature was so cold that Mr. Alberto’s lips split and his face became red and felt sunburned. The cell had no beds or chairs, and had a single toilet, a sink, and two urinals out in the open. The cold made it difficult to sleep, and the size of the cell made it impossible for all of the men in the cell to lie down at the same time. The only water provided to the men was in a single thermos, shared by all. The water smelled like bleach and burned Mr. Alberto’s throat when he drank it. Mr. Alberto was held in one “hielera” for one day and night, and was transferred to a second similar “hielera” at another location, where he spent another day before he was ultimately transported to Broward Transitional Center in Florida.

While in the holding cells, Mr. Alberto was called out to speak with an officer. After answering some questions about his family, Mr. Alberto was told he had to sign documents printed in English, which Mr. Alberto does not speak or read. He repeatedly refused to sign the documents and asked what the documents said. The CBP agent ultimately told Mr. Alberto they were for his “deportation.” Mr. Alberto refused to sign the documents, saying he was afraid to go back to his country because he would be killed by a gang. The CBP agent told Mr. Alberto that he would send him to federal prison if he did not sign. Mr. Alberto became upset and began crying, and the CBP agent laughed and mocked him. After he continued to refuse to sign the documents, Mr. Alberto was taken back to the holding cell and again threatened with being sent to federal prison.

After arriving at the Broward Transitional Center, Mr. Alberto filed an FTCA administrative complaint. 

The government failed to respond to the administrative complaint within the six-month deadline. Mr. Alberto decided not to file a federal complaint.

*Not his actual name.

Counsel: Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Jennie Santos |  jsantos@aijustice.org

Jaimes v. Garibay, et al.

Posted on by

Jaimes v. Garibay, et al., No. 3:13-CV-01040-P (N.D. Tex., filed Mar. 12, 2013)

On the morning of January 31, 2012, Francisco Jaimes Villegas was driving with two of his Hispanic coworkers on Highway 84 outside Santa Anna, Texas, when he was pulled over by two Border Patrol (BP) agents using their emergency lights. Mr. Jaimes was driving an unaltered, uncovered pick up truck, with a tool box and a generator in the truck bed, and was obeying all relevant traffic laws when he was stopped. When the two BP agents approached, one on each side of the truck, one agent immediately handcuffed Mr. Jaimes to the person sitting in the rear, and the other agent handcuffed the person sitting in the passenger seat to himself, before asking them any questions. The agents then interrogated the handcuffed men as to whether they had any “papers,” after which they pulled the three men out of the truck and put them in the back seat of their own car. Mr. Jaimes and his co-workers remained in the car while the BP agents similarly stopped another truck and arrested two more men, who were then squeezed into the back seat of the BP vehicle as well. The agents continued looking for people on the same road, arresting one other man who was put in a second vehicle, until they finally brought the men to the Border Patrol station in San Angelo.

At the station, Mr. Jaimes was questioned by one of the arresting agents. Mr. Jaimes informed the agent that he did not want to sign a form agreeing to be sent out of the country. He then was questioned a second time by a different agent, who told him that he had to sign, and tried to convince him that it would be better for him to do so, telling him he was going to be deported anyway. Mr. Jaimes refused to sign, which appeared to upset the agent. CBP proceeded to hold Mr. Jaimes in a cell for three hours and then transported him to another holding facility where he spent the night in a room with 10 other people.

The case was stayed by the district court in 2014 pending a decision by the Fifth Circuit in De La Paz v. Coy, which also raised the issue of the availability of a Bivens remedy to address 4th Amendment violations arising from a Border Patrol roving patrol.

Following the Fifth Circuit’s decision in De la Paz, the district court, on September 30, 2015, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the Bivens action but denied summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s FTCA claims.

In December 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for a stay pending decision on a forthcoming petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in De la Paz v. Coy et al., which was filed in January 2016 (No. 15-888) and denied June 2017. The case was administratively closed in district court.

Counsel: De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz, LLP

Contact: David Armendáriz | 210.534.1844 | davida@dmcausa.com