Daniel Cantu v. James Moody
933 F.3d 414
5th Cir.2019Background
- In 2011 federal agents ran a sting targeting the Texas Mexican Mafia; an informant delivered a cooler containing nearly two kilograms of heroin during the operation.
- Daniel Enrique Cantú was present when the informant handed the cooler to the passenger seat of Cantú’s car; agents arrested Cantú and he spent over two years detained before a federal jury acquitted him at trial.
- Cantú sued multiple federal, state, and local officers and entities asserting § 1983, § 1985(3), Bivens, FTCA, and assorted state-law tort claims, alleging fabrication of evidence, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and conspiracy.
- The district court dismissed all claims against the federal, state, and county defendants and denied leave to file a fourth amended complaint; Cantú appealed as to four officers (FBI Agents James Moody, Erin LaBuz, David de los Santos, and Texas DPS Officer Alfredo Barrera).
- On appeal, Cantú pursued only a subset of his claims; the Fifth Circuit reviewed dismissals de novo and addressed (1) § 1985(3) conspiracy against federal officers, (2) § 1983 claims against Barrera, and (3) a Bivens fabrication-of-evidence claim against Moody and LaBuz.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1985(3) covers alleged conspiracy by federal officers to deprive Cantú of rights | Cantú: federal agents conspired to fabricate evidence and arrest him in retaliation; § 1985(3) applies | Defendants: § 1985(3) targets state-actor, class-based conspiracies (racial animus); does not apply to federal officers here | Dismissed — § 1985(3) claim fails: Fifth Circuit requires class-based (racial) animus and plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory; also no pleaded agreement by de los Santos |
| Whether § 1983 claims (conspiracy, fabrication, malicious prosecution) against Texas DPS Officer Barrera are sufficiently pleaded | Cantú: Barrera joined the investigation and helped target Cantú, fabricated evidence and maliciously prosecuted him | Barrera: allegations are conclusory; no factual showing of agreement, fabrication, or participation in prosecution decision | Dismissed — allegations are conclusory and fail to allege facts showing agreement, fabrication, or causation |
| Whether a Bivens action lies for alleged fabrication of evidence by FBI agents that led to arrest/prosecution | Cantú: Bivens should extend to fabrication/malicious-prosecution-like Fourth Amendment claims causing detention and damages | Defendants: Bivens should not be extended; this is a new context and special factors (FTCA, separation-of-powers, national/security and multijurisdictional law-enforcement complexity) counsel against judicially creating a remedy | Dismissed — Bivens does not extend to this new context; special factors and Abbasi framework preclude creating a damages remedy |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to file a fourth amended complaint | Cantú: should be allowed another amendment to cure defects | Defendants: plaintiff had multiple chances, amendments inconsistent with prior agreements, and undue delay | Affirmed — denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion under Foman factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officers in narrow Fourth Amendment context)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (articulated framework for determining when to extend Bivens and enumerated special factors counsel)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (Fourth Amendment governs detention claims; courts may look to tort analogues for certain rules)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (recognized Bivens Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care by federal jailers)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (recognized Bivens-type Fifth Amendment claim in employment-discrimination context)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (discussed nuisance of extending implied causes and judicial restraint)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (causation and proof standards for malicious-prosecution-type claims)
- Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (refused to extend Bivens to private prison context)