De La Paz v. Coy
786 F.3d 367
5th Cir.2015Background
- Daniel Frias and Alejandro Garcia, noncitizens apprehended hundreds of miles from the U.S.–Mexico border by CBP agents after traffic stops; each alleges the stop/arrest was motivated by Hispanic ethnicity.
- Both sued the arresting agents individually (Bivens claims for Fourth Amendment violations) and the U.S. (Declaratory/APA and FTCA claims); district courts denied motions to dismiss the Bivens claims and rejected qualified immunity at that stage.
- Frias admitted illegal presence after the stop; Garcia was alleged to have given an evasive answer to an agent’s question about citizenship; both had immigration proceedings later closed or terminated.
- Defendants (CBP agents) argued the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and related remedial scheme (and separation‑of‑powers concerns) preclude creating a Bivens damages remedy in the civil immigration context; they also asserted qualified immunity.
- The Fifth Circuit considered whether to extend Bivens to civil immigration stops/detentions and, guided by Supreme Court precedent and sister‑circuit decisions, concluded Bivens should not be extended here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens actions lie for alleged Fourth Amendment violations arising from civil immigration stops/arrests | Bivens analogizes: unlawful stop/arrest like Bivens search/arrest; damages remedy needed | INA creates an alternative remedial scheme; separation‑of‑powers and special factors counsel against creating Bivens remedy | Held: No — Bivens not available for claims arising in civil immigration enforcement/removal proceedings |
| Whether INA or its remedial framework precludes judicially created damages remedy | INA lacks explicit damages remedy but plaintiffs argue alternative procedures are inadequate | INA and implementing regs provide procedural protections, suppression in egregious cases, internal investigations and remedies; Congress amended INA repeatedly without adding damages remedy | Held: INA’s comprehensive scheme is an adequate alternative and signals courts not to create Bivens remedy |
| Whether special factors counsel hesitation in recognizing Bivens in immigration context | Plaintiffs argue deterrence and compensation justify damages remedy | Defendants emphasize deterrence is limited, risk of chilling enforcement, separation‑of‑powers, and massive potential for disruptive litigation | Held: Special factors (deterrence limits, separation of powers, operational burdens) counsel against extending Bivens |
| Need to decide qualified immunity for agents on these facts | Plaintiffs contend agents violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights | Defendants raised qualified immunity but court deemed it unnecessary to resolve after finding Bivens unavailable | Held: Court did not reach qualified immunity because it disposed of claims on Bivens availability grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishing implied damages remedy against federal officers for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (courts must heed special factors before creating new Bivens remedies)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (Bivens remedy recognized when no effective alternative remedy exists)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (declining to create Bivens remedy where Congress provided alternative remedial mechanisms)
- Lopez‑Mendoza v. INS, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (rules and limits for exclusionary rule in immigration proceedings)
- Malesko v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens extension disfavored; separation‑of‑powers concerns)
- Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (judicial caution in recognizing new causes of action for damages)
- Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (refusing to extend Bivens to extraordinary rendition in immigration context)
- Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (declining Bivens remedy for claims tied to deportation/removal proceedings)
- Martinez‑Aguero v. Gonzalez, 459 F.3d 618 (5th Cir. 2006) (permitting Bivens for excessive‑force claims in immigration detention; distinguished by this court)
- Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1987) (assumed availability of Bivens for certain abuses in immigration detention; court limited its reach)