Flores v. United States, 2:14-cv-06614

Background

Eduardo Flores was detained by ICE on August 12, 2008, at his home; he alleges rough arrest, denial/delay of medical care, and ~3 months' detention before medical release. His wife Patricia alleges related emotional and financial harms.
Flores had a July 3, 1979 passport stamp indicating lawful permanent resident (LPR) status; an IJ issued an order on December 2, 2010 concluding that Flores had been granted LPR status in 1979; DHS later closed the matter and Flores received an adjustment approval notice in February 2012 and a green card in November 2012; he naturalized in 2013.
Plaintiffs submitted four SF-95 administrative claims in November 2013; DHS denied the DHS-directed claims on May 5, 2014 as untimely. The claims to immigration adjudicatory offices received no final agency decision within six months.
Plaintiffs filed this FTCA suit on November 10, 2014; plaintiffs showed the court the complaint was received by the Clerk on November 6, 2014, and sought application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4) to treat the filing as timely.
The Government moved for summary judgment on timeliness and exhaustion grounds; the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment, found plaintiffs’ administrative claims against DHS and USCIS time-barred, denied tolling/continuing-violation relief, and held Patricia Flores failed to exhaust a derivative claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district complaint was timely filed after agency denial	Complaint was received by Clerk on Nov 6, 2014 and Rule 5(d)(4) requires filing; thus within 6-month FTCA filing window	Complaint filed Nov 10, 2014 (after six months from May 6, 2014 denial) and therefore untimely	Court treated receipt date as filing under Rule 5(d)(4); complaint deemed timely as to some claims
Whether administrative FTCA claims to agencies were timely (2-year rule)	Accrual did not occur until IJ decision (Dec 2, 2010) or USCIS approval (Feb 8, 2012); claims filed Nov 2013 thus timely	Accrual occurred at latest by Dec 2, 2010 (when IJ confirmed LPR status) so claims filed Nov 2013 are beyond two-year limit	Claims against DHS and USCIS accrued by Dec 2, 2010; administrative claims filed in Nov 2013 were untimely and properly denied
Whether equitable tolling or continuing violation doctrines save plaintiffs' claims	Extraordinary agency misconduct and ongoing violations justify tolling or treating harms as continuing	Plaintiffs were not diligent, had gaps in pursuit, were represented by counsel, and identified no extraordinary circumstance or non-time-barred act	Court declined equitable tolling and rejected continuing-violation theory; no tolling granted
Whether Patricia Flores exhausted a derivative FTCA claim	Her November 26, 2013 letter and inclusion on submissions provided notice of her individual claim	She did not file her own SF-95 or assert a sum certain; she was listed as a witness, not a claimant	Court held Patricia failed to exhaust administrative remedies; derivative claim dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment inferences)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (materiality standard for summary judgment)
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (U.S.) (no genuine issue where record could not support nonmovant)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (U.S.) (FTCA time limits are subject to equitable tolling)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S.) (accrual rules for claims attacking legality of detention/conviction)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S.) (Fourth Amendment false-arrest accrual rules)
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S.) (accrual when plaintiff knows existence and cause of injury)
F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S.) (FTCA does not authorize suits for constitutional torts)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S.) (discrete acts start new limitations periods)