Diaz-Bernal v. Myers
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132908
D. Conn.2010Background
- ICE raid on Fair Haven residents in June 2007; four raid teams conducted home entries and arrests without warrants or probable cause
- Plaintiffs detained for days at Wyatt Detention Facility and not informed of rights; language barriers led to signing English forms with limited translation
- Supervisory ICE officials (Myers, Torres, Chadbourne, Martin, Sullivan) allegedly authorized or knew of NFOP quotas and the Operation Return to Sender framework
- NFOP quota policy allegedly incentivized bystander arrests and inadequate pre- and post-training for officers
- Plaintiffs assert Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendment/Bivens and FTCA claims, including negligent hiring, training, and supervision
- Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss; some claims proceed and discovery is allowed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declaratory relief against the United States under FTCA/APA | Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under FTCA and APA | FTCA/sovereign immunity precludes non-monetary relief; APA does not waive immunity when another statute limits relief | Declaratory relief against US dismissed |
| Negligent hiring, training, and supervision under FTCA | Negligent hiring/training/supervision claims arise from unconstitutional conduct | Discretionary function exception applies; training/hiring claims barred or require summary judgment | Negligent hiring dismissed; negligent training/supervision discovery allowed; summary judgment denied pending discovery |
| Subject matter jurisdiction under INA sections 1252(b)(9), (g), (a)(2)(B)(ii) | Some constitutional claims not barred; removal proceedings not initiating claims here | INA strips jurisdiction for claims arising from removal proceedings or discretionary acts | 1252(b)(9) not to bar; 1252(g) partly not barred for certain claims; 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) not precluding pre-removal constitutional claims |
| Fourth Amendment claims against supervisory defendants; Heck/Implied damages; Bivens viability | Supervisors liable for policy-created violations; Bivens remedy available; not barred by Heck | Some claims barred by Heck; IG on uniform policy; Special factors preclude Bivens | Fourth Amendment claims against some supervisors permitted; Heck not applicable; Bivens viable; some supervisor claims to be evaluated further |
| Fifth/Fourth Amendment procedural/due process and equal protection distinctions | Procedural due process violations and race-based unequal treatment | Some claims fall under Fourth Amendment; others barred or qualified immunity applies | Procedural due process claims dismissed; equal protection claims survive against some defendants; qualified immunity issues exist |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969) (sovereign immunity and declaratory relief limitations under King doctrine)
- El Badrawi v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 579 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Conn. 2008) (FTCA/APA interplay; pre-removal vs post-removal claims; not all relief barred)
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (section 1252(g) discrete actions; limits on review of removal proceedings)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (special factors/alternative remedies; limits on Bivens where other relief exists)
- Benzman v. Whitman, 523 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) (statutory scheme for removal proceedings; limits on non-statutory remedies)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; supervisory liability refined post-Iqbal)
- City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference and training/municipal liability)