295 F. Supp. 3d 874
M.D. Tenn.2018Background
- Plaintiff Abdullah Abriq, an F‑1 visa holder with no criminal convictions, was taken into ICE custody and transferred to the Davidson County Jail on April 6, 2017; Metro held him until April 11, 2017.
- ICE had issued a civil detainer; plaintiff alleges neither ICE nor Metro had warrants or probable cause to arrest or detain him, and Metro lacked an active §287(g) agreement with ICE (its prior agreement expired in 2012).
- Plaintiff sued Metro under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims) and under Tennessee law (false imprisonment and unjust enrichment), and sought declaratory relief for ultra vires actions.
- Metro moved to dismiss, arguing (inter alia) lack of a private right to enforce the Metro Charter/statute, that §287.7 detainers do not compel local detention, that cooperation under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10) permitted detention, and that state statutory immunities or tort standards bar the state claims.
- The Court accepted the §1983 vehicle and denied Metro’s private‑right‑of‑action challenge, held the Fourth Amendment claim survived (plausible lack of probable cause and lack of §287(g) authority), dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim, and dismissed plaintiff’s unjust enrichment and false imprisonment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of private action to challenge Metro's detention | Abriq brings §1983 and state common‑law claims alleging Metro unlawfully detained him without authority | Metro: no private right to enforce Metro Charter or state immigration statute | Court: §1983 and state common‑law remedies available; Metro's private‑right argument denied |
| Fourth Amendment — seizure based on ICE detainer/no §287(g) agreement | Abriq: Metro seized him without probable cause and without authority because no §287(g) agreement existed | Metro: detainer/cooperation and state statutes permit holding detainees; prior practice justified action | Court: sufficiently pleaded that Metro lacked probable cause and no §287(g) authority; Fourth Amendment claim survives dismissal |
| Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process | Abriq: detention was a significant deprivation of liberty requiring due process protection | Metro: the Fourth Amendment governs seizure claims; Fourteenth Amendment not applicable | Court: claim duplicative of Fourth Amendment and dismissed |
| State claims — unjust enrichment & false imprisonment | Abriq: Metro accepted federal payments for housing detainees after agreement expired; equitable relief and constructive trust warranted; false imprisonment for detention without authority | Metro: plaintiff did not directly confer benefit; TGTLA immunity and negligence pleading requirements bar claims | Court: unjust enrichment dismissed for lack of direct benefit conferred; false imprisonment dismissed because plaintiff failed to plead requisite negligence under TGTLA |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard on a motion to dismiss)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) (§1983 creates private right for constitutional violations by state actors)
- Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2014) (ICE detainers are requests, not mandatory commands to local LEAs)
- Miller v. Sanilac County, 606 F.3d 240 (6th Cir. 2010) (municipal liability requires policy/custom as moving force)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use appropriate specific‑amendment analysis rather than substantive due process)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (substantive due process not a substitute where a specific amendment applies)
- Morales v. Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208 (1st Cir. 2015) (probable cause required for detentions requested by ICE detainers)