Category Archives: Arizona

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, et al., v. DHS, et al., No. 1:23-cv-104769 (D. Mass, filed Mar. 2, 2023)

On December 14, 2021, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) and Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) submitted a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking information about how CBP adjudicates humanitarian parole requests. Immigration law authorizes CBP and other agencies to parole noncitizens into the United States for “humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” As the government sets up more obstacles to legal entry—such as the former bar on entry pursuant to Title 42 and other limits on processing asylum seekers at ports of entry—humanitarian parole is often the only vehicle to seek temporary protection in the United States.

CBP has provided little information about how it adjudicates these urgent requests. Since 2017, FIRRP has been providing legal services to asylum seekers in Nogales, Sonora, just across the border from the Nogales Port of Entry into Nogales, Arizona. For their most vulnerable clients, FIRRP submits humanitarian parole applications, but the overwhelming majority of these clients have received boilerplate denials or no response at all. FIRRP and LCR submitted a FOIA request seeking CBP’s policies and procedures for processing these requests and data regarding processing times and outcomes.

After CBP failed to provide any responsive records for over a year, on March 2, 2023, FIRRP and LCR filed a lawsuit under FOIA to compel CBP to respond.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers for Civil Rights and Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Marian Albert | Lawyers for Civil Rights | (617) 482-1145

Wilbur P.G. v. United States

Posted on by

Wilbur P.G, et al., v. United States, No. 4:21-cv-04457 (N.D. Cal., filed June 10, 2021)

Plaintiffs are three families who were separated at the Arizona border in May 2018 under the Department of Justice’s Zero Tolerance policy. The parents were separated from their children while in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody, under the guise of pursuing criminal prosecutions against the parents. Two parents were never criminally prosecuted, while the other parent was prosecuted for illegal entry—a misdemeanor—and served a three-day sentence in criminal custody.

After separating the children from their parents, CBP officers transferred the plaintiff children to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The families were separated for weeks. While detained, one parent sustained lasting physical injuries after being denied medical attention. One of the children was sexually abused while in ORR custody.

The families sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover damages caused by the separation itself, as well as the physical and emotional injuries suffered by various plaintiffs during their time in detention.

Plaintiffs filed suit on June 10, 2021 in the Northern District of California. On January 5, 2022, Defendant United States filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Arizona. Defendants also moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 10, 2022, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to transfer and motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint; Defendant later amended the answer on July 29, 2022. As of February 2023, discovery is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area | Keker, Van Nest & Peters

Contact: Victoria Petty | vpetty@lccrsf.org

Press:

Note: Other family separation cases filed in California include:

  • I.T. v. United States, 4:22-cv-5333 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 20, 2022);
  • J.R.G. and M.A.R. v. United States, 4:22-cv-5183 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 12, 2022);
  • Rodriguez v. United States, 2:22-cv-2845 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 28, 2022);
  • A.F.P. v. United States, 1:21-cv-780 (E.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2021);
  • Nunez Euceda v. United States, 2:20-cv-10793 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 25, 2020).

Other family separation cases filed in district courts in other states:

  • F.C.C. v. United States, 2:22-cv-5057 (E.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 25, 2022);
  • W.P.V. v. Cayuga Home for Children, Inc. and United States, 1:21-cv-4436 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 17, 2021);
  • C.D.A. v. United States, 5:21-cv-469 (E.D. Pa., filed Feb. 1, 2021);
  • R.Y.M.R v. United States, 1:20-cv-23598 (S.D. Fla., filed Aug. 28, 2020);
  • D.J.C.V. v. United States, 1:20-cv-5747 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 24, 2020).

For a list of District of Arizona family separation cases, consult the entry on C.M. v. United States.

Letters Protesting CBP’s Practice of Confiscating Sikh Individuals’ Turbans During Asylum Processing

Posted on by

On August 1, 2022, the ACLU of Arizona, along with the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, filed a letter with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Chris Magnus asking for an investigation and cessation of the Yuma Border Patrol Sector’s practice of confiscating religious headwear from Sikh individuals seeking asylum. The letter argued that such confiscations violate individuals’ religious freedom rights, federal law, and CBP’s own non-discrimination policy.

The ACLU of Arizona, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and Sikh Coalition, along with over 160 other organizations sent a second letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on August 22, 2022.  The letter requested DHS investigation on the broader property confiscation issue to include all religious articles of faith, personal belongings, and access to religious-compliant meals.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona | ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

Contact: Vanessa Pineda, vpineda@acluaz.org | Noah Schramm, nschramm@acluaz.org

Press:

Mendivil Perez v. United States

Posted on by

Angel Mendivil Perez v. United States, et al., 4:21-cv-00051-JEM (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 4, 2021)

On February 7, 2019, Alex Mendivil Perez, a U.S. citizen who was then 21 years old, was shot in the head by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer while attempting to exit the U.S. into Mexico through the Nogales port of entry. At around 7 p.m. that day, Mr. Mendivil arrived at the border crossing driving a pickup truck with a passenger. CBP officers approached his truck, which had license plates registered to a different vehicle, and questioned him. During the questioning, Mr. Mendivil accelerated towards Mexico. As Mr. Mendivil drove away, an unknown CBP officer shot Mr. Mendivil in the head through the back window of his car. Though Mr. Mendivil was so gravely injured that he was believed dead at the scene of his shooting, he survived with permanent injuries, including brain damage.

In February 2021, Mr. Mendivil filed suit against the United States and the unknown CBP officer alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act as well as violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 13, 2021, and Defendants filed their answer on August 24, 2021. Discovery is currently underway, and extended to April 28, 2023. Dispositive motions are due on May 26, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel: Risner & Graham

Contact: William J. Risner & Kenneth K. Graham| bill@risnerandgraham.com | kk@risnerandgraham.com

Additional links:

• Dana Liebelson, A CBP Officer Shot a 21-Year-Old American in the Head. 6 Months Later, CBP Won’t Say Why, Huffington Post, Oct. 19, 2019.
• Ray Stern, A Tucson Man Shot by a Border Officer While Entering Mexico Has Filed a Lawsuit Against DHS, Phoenix New Times, Feb. 8, 2021.

No More Deaths v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

No More Deaths, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1:21-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 3, 2021)

Every year hundreds—possibly thousands—of migrants die while crossing into the United States from Mexico. The U.S. Border Patrol, within Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for most emergency aid requests for assistance in the desert, in part because local law enforcement agencies often refer 911 calls for emergency to Border Patrol when Spanish-speaking individuals call seeking help. Border Patrol’s role as an emergency services provider at the border is directly at odds with its role as an immigration enforcement agency.

Documentation by No More Deaths (NMD), a border aid organization, suggests that Border Patrol has often failed to carry out its search and rescue responsibilities: in 63% of all border distress calls referred to Border Patrol, the agency did not conduct any confirmed search or rescue mobilization. And when Border Patrol does initiate searches, they are significantly less effective when compared to searches for missing or lost U.S. citizens. Some Border Patrol searches last less than a day, or scarcely an hour. Documentation by local human rights organizations shows that in over 100 cases over a two-year period, Border Patrol agents actively interfered with family and humanitarian-organization led search efforts. In April 2019, NMD and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information about CBP’s practices and policies relating to emergency services it claims to provide along the U.S.-Mexico border. In February 2021, after CBP failed to provide records for over 20 months, NMD and CCR filed a complaint seeking to compel an immediate, expedited search for and disclosure of requested records. The government filed its answer to the complaint in March 2021. As of November 2022, CBP’s production of responsive material is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Center for Constitutional Rights

Contact: Angelo Guisado | aguisado@ccrjustice.org

Additional Links

Adlerstein v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Adlerstein, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 4:19-cv-00500-CKJ (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 16, 2019)

Ana Adlerstein, Jeff Valenzuela, and Alex Mensing are humanitarian activists whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subjected to repeated and lengthy detentions, searches, and interrogations without any connection to legitimate border control functions. All three are U.S. citizens with a right to return to the United States and yet all three were targeted as part of the federal government’s surveillance of individuals and groups protesting United States immigration policies.

On May 5, 2019, Ms. Adlerstein lawfully accompanied an asylum seeker to the Lukeville, Arizona port of entry. Without any evidence that Ms. Adlerstein had committed a crime, a CBP officer arrested and handcuffed Ms. Adlerstein, subjected her to an intrusive search, and detained her for hours, denying her requests to speak to her attorney. When Ms. Adlerstein protested that the CBP officers were violating her rights, an officer responded: “The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply here.”

Mr. Valenzuela, a photographer and humanitarian volunteer, attempted to drive back into the United States at a port of entry in San Diego in December 2018. When he arrived, border officers walked to his car, ordered him out, handcuffed him, and marched him into their offices. They took his belongings, searched his bags, and shackled him by his ankles to a steel bench. They left him there, chained, for hours. Eventually they brought him to a small room where they interrogated him about his volunteer work, his associations, and his political beliefs.

Mr. Mensing crossed into the United States from Mexico twenty-eight times during a period of six months between June 2018 and October 2019. On twenty-six of those entries, CBP agents summarily referred him for “secondary inspection,” which for him included detention, searches, and repeated interrogation. During these interrogations, officers repeatedly asked him the same questions about his work, his finances, his associations, and his personal writings. These seizures became a routine part of his life: cross the border, get detained for hours, and be forced to answer the same questions by the government.

In their complaint, filed on October 16, 2019, the activists allege that CBP’s conduct violated the Fourth and First Amendments. The complaint also alleges that the government’s collection of private and protected information from the activists violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)-(l). The activists sought injunctive and declaratory relief. In April 2020, the parties completed briefing on the government’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The court held oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on August 4, 2020. On October 1, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing Plaintiffs to proceed on their First and Fourth Amendment claims regarding Mr. Valenzuela’s detention. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 26, 2020. Defendants responded to the amended complaint on December 4, 2020. The case continued in discovery through 2021 and 2022. Discovery is scheduled to terminate in February 2023, with dispositive motions due in July 2023.

Counsel: ACLU of Southern California; ACLU of Arizona; Kirkland & Ellis

Contact: Mohammad Tajsar | (213) 977-9500 | mtajsar@aclusocal.org

A.I.I.L. et al. v. Sessions et al.

Posted on by

A.I.I.L. on behalf of herself and her minor children, J.A.H.I. and M.E.H.I., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00481 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 3, 2019)

This lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents who were forcibly torn from each other under the Trump administration’s illegal practice of separating families at the border.

Leading child welfare organizations, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and medical professionals have publicly denounced the forced separation of children from their parents, citing the long-lasting, detrimental effects on children’s emotional growth and cognitive development. Separated parents, meanwhile, face an increased risk of developing mental health disorders, with trauma linked to severe anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

Plaintiffs cited in the complaint include families from Guatemala and Honduras who were separated along the border in Arizona for up to 16 months. In addition to damages, the lawsuit seeks the creation of a fund to pay for professional mental health services for affected families.

The lawsuit, A.I.I.L. v. Sessions, cites violations of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure of children); the Fifth Amendment due process clause (fundamental right to family integrity; right to a hearing; right to adequate health care); and equal protection (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin).

Defendants include officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Health and Human Services (HHS)/Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

On February 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and qualified immunity. Briefing on that motion is complete. On July 22, 2020, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to include their administratively exhausted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims. Defendants requested that the court defer a decision on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend pending the court’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2020 the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. In February 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and on qualified immunity grounds.

On May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs sought a stay of the action to facilitate further settlement discussions in hopes of resolving their FTCA claims against the United States. The individual Defendants objected to the stay of the individual-capacity claims. The court lifted the abeyance on January 7, 2022.

On March 31, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims except for the FTCA claims of four of the five Plaintiff families. With respect to the FTCA claims, the court held, among other things, that those claims were not barred by the discretionary function or due care exceptions to the FTCA. With respect to the dismissed constitutional claims brought under Bivens, the court held, among other things, that special factors counseled against extending Bivens to a new context that challenged high level policy decisions. On July 14, 2022, the court denied the government’s motions to consolidate policy-level discovery in A.I.I.L. with related family separation cases in the district.

On July 15, 2022, the individual Defendants filed a Rule 54(b) motion for the entry of a final judgment as to the claims against the individual defendants. On March 31, 2023, the court denied the motion, finding that the dismissed individual claims and the pending FTCA claims raised related issues of fact and law and that two appeal tracks would complicate the case and burden Plaintiffs.

On April 11, 2023, the court transferred the claims of two of the named plaintiffs to the Southern District of Texas, where their separation occurred.

Documents:

Counsel: Christine Wee, ACLU of Arizona; Lee Gelernt, Anand Balakrishnan, Daniel Galindo, Stephen Kang, & Spencer Amdur, ACLU Immigrant Rights’ Project; Geoffry R. Chepiga, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Emily Goldberg, Hallie S. Goldblatt, Steven C. Herzog, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Alexander A. Reinert, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Contact: Lee Gelernt | ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | lgelernt@aclu.org

Bressi v. Napier

Posted on by

Bressi v. Napier, No. 4:18-cv-00186 (D. Ariz., amended complaint filed July 2, 2018) and No. 22-15123 (9th Cir., filed Jan. 27, 2022)

On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff Terry Bressi filed an amended complaint against Pima County Sheriff, Mark Napier, and other county defendants alleging that they violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights when Sheriff’s deputies arrested him at a Border Patrol checkpoint in April 2017 after refusing to answer Border Patrol’s citizenship questions. Bressi has also lodged a federal notice of claim against the Border Patrol based on the same incident.

Bressi, who has traveled the same route since 1993 from his Tucson home to his rural worksite west of Tucson, has contended many times with the abuses and excesses of the Border Patrol. For example, Mr. Bressi previously sued another local police agency when a deputy illegally detained him at a Border Patrol checkpoint. See Bressi v. Ford, 575 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 2009).

On April 10, 2017, Bressi was returning home from work when he passed through the Border Patrol checkpoint. Consistent with his personal opposition to the existence of interior checkpoints, Bressi refused to answer the Border Patrol’s questions. Shortly after, a Pima County Sheriff’s deputy – who was stationed at the checkpoint under a federal grant program called Operation Stonegarden – took over the interaction with Bressi and insisted that he answer the Border Patrol’s questions. Eventually, the deputy arrested Bressi and placed him in handcuffs, purportedly because Bressi had “obstructed” the highway.

This lawsuit alleges that the deputy retaliated against Bressi for exercising his First Amendment right not to answer Border Patrol’s questions. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the pervasive presence of local law enforcement at the Border Patrol checkpoint materially altered the nature of the checkpoint itself, rendering the whole checkpoint unconstitutional under the long-standing Fourth Amendment principle that permanent checkpoints are permitted only for limited immigration-related purposes and not for the “general interest in crime control.” The federal defendants answered the complaint on October 2, 2019. The Pima County defendants moved to dismiss the case.

On April 17, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part. Although the court dismissed Bressi’s claim that defendants improperly retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right not to speak during an immigration stop, Bressi’s Fourth Amendment claims regarding the constitutionality of the checkpoint and his arrest survived.

Discovery continued through June 2021. On June 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that the checkpoint violates the Fourth Amendment and on June 17, 2021, Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On January 10, 2022, the district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  On February 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, finding the evidence showed that the checkpoint was a permissible exercise of immigration enforcement authority and that Bressi’s arrest was supported by probable cause.

Documents:

Counsel: Ralph E. Ellinwood PLLC

Contact: Ralph E. Ellinwood | Ralph E Ellinwood Attorney at Law PLLC | ree@yourbestdefense.com

Resources:

FTCA Administrative Complaints Challenging Abuses from CBP Roving Patrols

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaints Challenging Abuses from CBP Roving Patrols

When conducting enforcement operations within the United States, CBP regularly sends its officers on “roving patrols.” These patrols, conducted many miles away from the U.S. Border, often lead to the detention and interrogation of U.S. citizens without reasonable suspicion of any crime. Many of the U.S. citizens detained by CBP were targeted because of their ethnicity, and CBP officers have subjected citizens to verbal and physical abuse while checking their citizenship status. Collected here are examples of complaints that the ACLU has filed against CBP to address the continued violation of U.S. citizens’ rights at the hands of CBP.

2013 Office of the Inspector General Complaint

On October 9, 2013, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project  submitted an administrative complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) concerning unlawful conduct of Border Patrol agents during roving patrols in Southern Arizona.  The complaint was submitted on behalf of 5 U.S. citizens who detail very serious incidents of verbal or physical abuse when their vehicles were stopped without reasonable suspicion by Border Patrol agents.  In at least two of the incidents, young children were traveling in the vehicles.

The complaint calls for the investigation of these incidents; a comprehensive review of complaints involving CBP roving patrols to determine whether Border Patrol agents are complying with their obligations under agency guidelines, the U.S. Constitution, and international law; and recommendations from OIG and CRCL regarding significant changes in CBP training, oversight, and accountability mechanisms necessary to address the problems and prevent further abuses.

2014 Office of the Inspector General Complaint

On January 15, 2014, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties concerning abuses committed by Border Patrol agents at interior vehicle checkpoints in southern Arizona.  The complaint was submitted on behalf of 15 U.S. citizens, aged 6-69 years old, and detailed 12 incidents in which their rights were violated when they were stopped at 6 checkpoints over a period of a year and a half.

The complaint calls for the investigation of all of the incidents identified; a comprehensive review of all complaints regarding Border Patrol checkpoints over the past five years; a thorough review of Border Patrol checkpoint policies and practices to ensure that operations are in fact limited to briefly verifying citizenship and that agents are receiving guidance regarding the limits of their authority; and a review of all policies and procedures related to service canines, in light of widespread reports of “false alerts” by the dogs.

2015 Federal Tort Claims Act Administrative Complaint

On May 19, 2015, the ACLU of Arizona filed two claims with the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) on behalf of an Arizona woman seeking monetary damages for egregious and repeated rights violations by U.S. Border Patrol agents.

The first claim arises out of an incident on May 21, 2013, in which Border Patrol agents stopped Clarisa Christiansen and her two young children without cause while the family was driving home from school.  After Ms. Christiansen demanded an explanation, the agents threatened to deploy a Taser and then threatened to cut her out of her seatbelt with a knife.  The agents subsequently slashed a rear tire and left Ms. Christiansen and her children stranded on a hot desert road with a flat tire and no explanation.

In October 2013, the ACLU submitted a complaint to DHS oversight agencies on behalf of Ms. Christiansen and four others who were subjected to unlawful “roving patrol” stops by Border Patrol.  More than a year and a half later, those agencies have yet to respond.

The second claim was filed in response to years of unauthorized and unlawful entries by Border Patrol agents onto the family’s private property west of Tucson.  On a weekly basis, Border Patrol helicopters buzz the family’s home at extremely low altitudes, causing dwellings to shake, and often disrupting the family’s sleep with deafening noise and bright lights.  Agents have also repeatedly entered the Christiansens’ property on foot and on motorized vehicles, despite numerous posted “No Trespassing” signs.

Federal law currently grants Border Patrol authority to enter onto private property within twenty-five miles of the border “to prevent illegal entry.”  Agents are further empowered to conduct interior enforcement within 100 miles of any national boundary, an area that encompasses most of the U.S. population.  As in Ms. Christiansen’s case, agents routinely ignore the legal limits of their authority in the course of these operations.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona

Cervantes v. United States, et al.

Posted on by

Cervantes v. United States, et al., No. 4:16-cv-00334-CKJ (D. Ariz., filed June 8, 2016) 

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff, a teenage U.S. citizen, filed a law suit under Bivens, the Federal Tort Claim Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking redress for seven hours of abusive and degrading searches and strip searches by Border Patrol agents.  The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was walking home after eating breakfast in Nogales, Sonora when a Border Patrol agent accused her of carrying drugs.  She was then directed to a detention room, handcuffed to a chair, sniffed by dogs, and strip-searched by female agents.   After no drugs were found, CBP agents brought her to Holy Cross Hospital, in handcuffs, where hospital staff subjected her to invasive pelvic and rectal exams while CBP agents observed.

On October 24, 2016, the Government filed their answer to the complaint.

On February 7, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Bivens claims against Defendant Patrick F. Martinez, M.D. On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant Martinez’s motion to dismiss. Subsequently, Defendant Martinez withdrew his motion to dismiss on February 28, 2017.

On November 10, 2017, Defendant Quantum Plus filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff erroneously brought a negligent hiring claim based solely on a Bivens action against an agent. Several days later, Defendant Holy Cross Hospital moved to join in Quantum Plus’ motion. On February 19, 2018, Defendant Martinez filed a separate motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff could not bring a Bivens action against him because he was privately employed and not acting under claim of federal authority at the time of the medical examination.

The court granted the motions on July 18, 2018, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. With respect to Quantum Plus and Holy Cross Hospitals’ motion, the court reasoned that Plaintiff could not hold Defendants liable on a negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim in a Bivens cause of action. Regarding Defendant Martinez’ motion, the court held that it may not impose Bivens liability because Plaintiff may pursue an alternate state court action.

Counsel: Brian Marchetti, Marchetti Law PLC and Matthew C. Davidson | Law Offices of Matthew C Davidson Limited