Benderoff v. Johansen
2:23-cv-12824
| E.D. Mich. | Mar 31, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Brian Benderoff was detained by federal and task force officers at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in June 2016 after flying in with large documented casino winnings.
- He was interrogated for over ten hours, signed Miranda waivers and consent forms, and eventually released; his devices were kept by authorities.
- In 2020, Benderoff was indicted on wire fraud charges; the case was dismissed in 2022 based on statute of limitations, not the merits.
- Benderoff filed this civil rights action in 2023, alleging unlawful detention and malicious prosecution under § 1983 and Bivens, against individual officers/agents.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: arguing that the claims were not viable under either § 1983 or Bivens, were time-barred, and that the prosecution was supported by probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers were state or federal actors for § 1983 claims | Some defendants were local law enforcement acting under state law | Defendants were all federal agents or part of a federal task force | All were federal actors; § 1983 claims dismissed |
| Whether Bivens could be extended to plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims | Claims are routine law enforcement actions—"heartland" Bivens | Involves DHS/HSI agents and new factual context; Bivens should not be extended | No Bivens extension; new context and special factors counsel hesitation |
| Whether unlawful detention claim is timely | Tolling applies due to fraudulent concealment by defendants | Claim accrued in 2016 and plaintiff knew of facts then; claim is time-barred | Untimely; no fraudulent concealment shown |
| Whether malicious prosecution claim survives | Defendants' false statements prolonged prosecution without probable cause | Grand jury indictment created presumption of probable cause, not rebutted | No malicious prosecution; probable cause existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing implied damages action for Fourth Amendment violation by federal agents)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) (limiting expansion of Bivens remedy and outlining when courts may extend it)
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) (further restricting Bivens extensions and emphasizing separation of powers)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (2020) (declining Bivens extension to Border Patrol context)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual of false arrest claims)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Bivens remedy for Fifth Amendment claim against federal official)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment violation)