Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Division
811 F. Supp. 2d 803
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are 25 individuals whose homes were searched by ICE in eight operations during Feb–Sept 2007; they sue ICE, DHS Supervisory Defendants (Chertoff, Myers, Torres, Forman), other ICE personnel, and the United States for Fourth/Fifth Amendment violations, seeking injunctive relief, FTCA damages, and Bivens damages.
- The Supervisory Defendants move to dismiss the claims against them; all defendants move to dismiss injunctive-relief claims.
- The complaint alleges searches occurred without warrants or consent, using pre-dawn raids, with intimidation and damage to property, targeting Latino residences.
- Plaintiffs allege that data and intelligence used to target raids were outdated or inaccurate and not properly documented, leading to repeated targeting of Latino homes.
- Plaintiffs seek to establish Supervisory Defendants’ liability through policies or customs they created or endorsed and their alleged failure to intervene despite notice of constitutional violations.
- Discovery has been extensive (40,000+ pages produced; 31 depositions); the matter is now ripe for Rule 12-based rulings on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisory liability under Bivens survives Iqbal for Fourth Amendment claims. | Chertoff/Myers created/endorsed policies enabling unconstitutional raids. | Iqbal bars supervisory-liability claims based on mere knowledge/acquiescence. | Chertoff/Myers claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether Torres/Forman plausibly alleged a policy causing Fourth Amendment violations. | Torres/Forman created/coordinated policies causing unconstitutional raids. | Sufficiency of pleadings under Iqbal uncertain; insufficient direct involvement. | Fourth Amendment claims against Torres/Forman survive; denial of dismissal. |
| Whether Supervisory Defendants face Fifth Amendment equal-protection claims after Iqbal. | Defendants intended to discriminate against Latinos. | Allegations amount to bare assertions; no plausible discriminatory purpose. | Fifth Amendment claims against Chertoff/Myers/ Torres/Forman dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief. | Plaintiffs fear future unconstitutional raids; ongoing policy indicates likelihood of repetition. | Standing is lacking without a showing of likelihood of future harm or official policy. | Standing to seek injunctive relief plausibly alleged; standing issue reserved; injunctive relief claims not dismissed on the pleadings. |
| Whether the injunctive-relief claims state a plausible claim for relief on the merits. | Constitutional violations irreparable; ongoing policy warrants injunction. | Injunctive relief requires more developed record; not appropriate at 12(c) stage. | 12(c) dismissal denied; merits to be developed; injunction claim survivals maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (establishes pleading standards for supervisory liability and rejects conclusory allegations)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must include more than mere labels and conclusions to be plausible)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (personal involvement / supervisory liability factors)
- United States v. Montes-Reyes, 547 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (use of a ruse to gain entry can render consent involuntary under totality of circumstances)
- Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2004) ( Lyons-based standing analysis for injunctive relief; need for official policy or likelihood of recurrence)
- Deshawn E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340 (2d Cir. 1998) ( Lyons-NyPD rejection/approval of official policy for injunctive relief shown by policy endorsement)
- Hayden v. Nassau County, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) (intentional discrimination concepts in Fifth Amendment pleadings)