Bernardo Mendia v. John Garcia
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18654
9th Cir.2014Background
- Mendia, a U.S. citizen, was arrested on state financial-crime charges and granted bail but lacked funds to post it without a bondsman.
- ICE agents interviewed him in jail, he identified himself as a U.S. citizen, invoked his Fifth Amendment right, and an agent threatened deportation; ICE then lodged an immigration detainer claiming he was an alien.
- Mendia alleges the detainer was issued maliciously or in reckless disregard of his citizenship and that every bail bondsman he contacted refused to post bail because of the detainer.
- As a result, Mendia remained in pre-trial detention for approximately two years; the detainer was later cancelled and the state court eventually released him on his own recognizance (which he initially declined, fearing deportation).
- Mendia sued the ICE agents under Bivens and the FTCA for damages; the district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury) | Mendia claims loss of liberty from prolonged pre-trial detention caused by the detainer. | ICE argued it never took Mendia into custody, so no Article III injury. | Injury established: detention is a personal, concrete injury regardless of who had physical custody. |
| Article III standing (causation) | The detainer caused bail bondsmen to refuse service, which prevented bail and led to detention. | Defendants argued causation is too attenuated and third-party actions break the chain; control over bondsmen lacking. | Causation adequately pleaded: factual allegations show the detainer was a substantial motivating factor for bondsmen, so standing survives a facial attack. |
| Standing for detention after release-on-recognizance | Mendia refused RAC release out of fear of deportation and stayed detained; he seeks damages for that period too. | ICE contended later detention was caused by Mendia’s choice, not defendants. | No standing for the period after the court removed bail: Mendia’s continued detention was self-inflicted and speculative as to future harm. |
| Sufficiency of complaint (facial attack) | Allegations from bondsmen that they refused because of the detainer are concrete and non-speculative. | Defendants said Mendia’s indigency or other reasons could explain refusal, making the causal claim speculative. | Complaint survives facial attack; disputes about motives and indigency are factual and for later proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing implied damages action against federal officers)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (standing requires injury fairly traceable to defendant, not independent third-party action)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements explained)
- Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835 (causation may be shown through a plausible chain of links; more particular facts needed when third parties act)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (no standing for speculative future harms; requirement of substantial risk)
- Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA, 633 F.3d 894 (plausible causation pled with specific factual support from affected third parties)