Bozgoz v. Haynes
Civil Action No. 2019-2790
D.D.C.Sep 17, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Margaret and Robert Bozgoz filed employment-discrimination and related claims arising from Robert’s VA employment (overtime denial, alleged failure to provide accommodations). Portions of their Fourth Amended Complaint were severed by Judge Jackson and reassigned as this action (claims arising Jan. 29–Aug. 7, 2019).
- The severed allegations focus on events around service-of-process attempts, a confrontation at a supervisor’s residence, an ensuing peace-order proceeding in Maryland, and alleged coordination among VA officials, prosecutors, and judges.
- Many defendants were previously dismissed (including Judges Jackson and Williams as judicially immune); remaining defendants here include two former Assistant U.S. Attorneys and three VA officials. Defendants moved to dismiss; Plaintiffs filed voluminous, largely irrelevant filings and a motion to transfer the case to a “military tribunal.”
- Defendants argued dismissal for failure to state a claim, improper defendants for statutory claims, inapplicability of § 1983, the inappropriateness of extending Bivens, and immunity for government lawyers.
- The district court concluded Plaintiffs’ pleadings were conclusory and implausible, statutory and constitutional remedies were unavailable or improperly pleaded, immunity barred relief, and therefore granted dismissal and denied the transfer motion as frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under Rule 8 / 12(b)(6) | Complaints state conspiratorial factual allegations and constitutional/statutory violations | Allegations are conclusory, disjointed, and fail Twombly/Iqbal plausibility | Dismissed for failure to state a claim (complaint implausible and conclusory) |
| Proper parties for statutory employment claims (Title VII, Rehab Act, ADA, ADEA) | Claims may proceed against named VA officials | Statutory scheme permits suit only against agency head (Secretary of VA); ADA does not treat U.S. as an ‘‘employer’’ for private-actor provisions | Statutory claims dismissed; named defendants are improper parties |
| Availability of § 1983 and Bivens remedies | Constitutional violations alleged (First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth) | § 1983 applies only to state actors; Bivens should not be extended given existing remedial schemes and separation-of-powers concerns | § 1983 inapplicable; Bivens claims unavailable/foreclosed and dismissed |
| Immunity for former AUSAs and government lawyers | Haynes/Kahn allegedly aided or obstructed service and proceedings | Prosecutors/government lawyers entitled to immunity (absolute or qualified) | Claims against AUSAs barred by immunity; court resolves on qualified-immunity grounds and dismisses |
| Motion to transfer to military tribunal | Plaintiffs sought transfer to DoD/military tribunal | No legal basis to transfer; case dismissed so nothing to transfer | Transfer motion denied as frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts disregard conclusory allegations; plausibility standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for advocatory functions)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (limits on extending Bivens; separation-of-powers concerns)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officers in limited context)
- Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(b)(6) tests legal sufficiency of complaint)
- Blue v. District of Columbia, 811 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (reciting pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (court may consider documents incorporated into complaint)
- Dupree v. Jefferson, 666 F.2d 606 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (courts may take judicial notice of related proceedings)
- Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discussion of special factors counseling against Bivens relief)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)