Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border
975 F.3d 488
5th Cir.2020Background
- Serrano, a U.S. citizen, was stopped at the Eagle Pass Port of Entry while photographing the border; CBP agents seized his phone, searched his truck, found a magazine and bullets, detained him, then seized his truck and contents as subject to forfeiture for attempted illegal export of munitions.
- CBP sent a seizure notice listing options to challenge the seizure, including administrative remission and judicial forfeiture referral if claimant filed a claim plus a cost bond (with a regulatory waiver available for indigence). Serrano mailed a bond check and requested referral to a judge.
- CBP retained Serrano’s vehicle and property for about 23 months without initiating forfeiture proceedings; Serrano incurred ongoing costs and sought return and relief.
- Serrano sued under Rule 41(g) for return (conceded moot after return), asserted Bivens damages claims (Fourth and Fifth Amendment) against individual agents, and sought classwide declaratory and injunctive relief challenging CBP’s practice of holding seized vehicles without prompt post-seizure judicial hearings and the bond condition.
- The district court dismissed the class due-process claims under Rule 12(b)(6) (Mathews balancing) and dismissed Bivens claims (new-context/special-factors and qualified immunity). Serrano appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a prompt post-seizure, pre-forfeiture judicial hearing for seized vehicles | Serrano: Mathews balancing requires a prompt, neutral post-seizure hearing to avoid erroneous deprivations | Defendants: existing statutory/administrative remedies (remission, Rule 41(g), judicial forfeiture with bond and referral) suffice; burden of universal prompt hearings is high | Held: No plausible due-process violation pleaded; Mathews factors favor Government; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether conditioning judicial forfeiture on posting a cost bond violates due process | Serrano: bond condition effectively bars indigent claimants and is unconstitutional | Defendants: bond deters frivolous claims, covers costs, and regulations permit waiver for inability to pay | Held: Claim failed (plaintiff did not seek/plead denial of waiver); bond requirement not shown unconstitutional |
| Whether a Bivens damages remedy lies for the alleged constitutional violations | Serrano: Bivens applies; context not new and special factors do not preclude damages | Defendants: context is new and special factors counsel against extending Bivens; qualified immunity protects officers | Held: Even assuming a Bivens remedy might exist, Serrano failed to plausibly state claims and did not overcome qualified immunity; Bivens claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishing implied damages remedy for constitutional violations by federal agents)
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (post-seizure hearing required under New York scheme; key contrast case)
- United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986) (forfeiture proceeding can satisfy post-seizure hearing if timely)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (greater procedural protections where government has pecuniary interest)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (limits on expanding Bivens; separation-of-powers/special-factors analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)