Dominguez v. United States
799 F.3d 151
1st Cir.2015Background
- Dominguez, a person who alleges he was born in Lawrence, Massachusetts, was detained by federal immigration authorities from July 1998 to September 1999 and ordered removed to the Dominican Republic after immigration proceedings.
- He repeatedly told ICE agents he was a U.S. citizen, but alleges they failed to investigate beyond the immigration file.
- While in the Dominican Republic he later obtained a Massachusetts birth certificate and, after applying at the U.S. Embassy, received a U.S. passport and returned to the U.S. in September 2009.
- In November 2010 he consulted an attorney and alleges he first learned his detention/deportation had been illegal; he filed an administrative FTCA claim in February 2012.
- The government moved to dismiss as time-barred under the FTCA; the district court granted dismissal and the First Circuit affirmed, holding accrual occurred well before the 2012 administrative filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the FTCA claim accrue under the discovery rule? | Accrual did not occur until Nov. 2010 when counsel told him his deportation was illegal. | Accrual occurred when Dominguez knew of his U.S. birthplace and that he was deported as an alien (by 1999/2009 return). | Held: Accrual occurred no later than return in 2009 (indeed earlier); claim is time-barred. |
| Can plaintiff rely on attorney confirmation to delay accrual? | Yes — counsel’s confirmation was necessary for accrual. | No — plaintiff cannot wait for an attorney; objective discovery rule controls. | Held: No; waiting for counsel does not delay accrual. |
| Does alleged duress, fraud, or threats by ICE postpone accrual or alter the reasonable-person inquiry? | Duress/fraud clouds his ability to discover claim until 2010. | Federal discovery-rule doctrine is objective; state-law duress decision is inapplicable. | Held: Federal law governs; duress/fraud do not change the discovery-rule accrual here. |
| Is there a continuing tort or equitably tolled period due to ongoing government refusal to acknowledge citizenship? | Ongoing refusal to acknowledge citizenship prevents accrual until adjudication. | Administrative complaint alleged only 1998–1999 conduct; no basis for continuing tort/adjudication. | Held: No continuing-tort basis; equitable tolling/continuing-violation theories fail or are waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yacubian v. United States, 750 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for construing factual allegations in favor of plaintiff)
- Sanchez v. United States, 740 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2014) (discovery rule and accrual analysis for FTCA claims)
- Rakes v. United States, 442 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2006) (application of federal discovery rule to FTCA claims)
- McIntyre v. United States, 367 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2004) (when a plaintiff knows or should know the factual basis for accrual)
- Callahan v. United States, 426 F.3d 444 (1st Cir. 2005) (discovery rule accrual elements)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (federal law governs FTCA accrual and statutes of limitations)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (equitable tolling principles)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (waiver for failure to develop arguments)
- Fisher v. United States, 959 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1992) (false arrest not a continuing tort)