German-Andujar v. Border Protection & US Customs
6:24-cv-06190
W.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Silvestre German-Andujar, proceeding pro se, alleged excessive force and constitutional violations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents during a search in January 2024.
- Plaintiff claims he was tackled and beaten, resulting in a serious shoulder injury, and was denied timely medical care, legal counsel, and translation.
- Plaintiff sought damages for violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The suit was brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, seeking damages against federal officers.
- Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.
- The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bivens remedy for border agent conduct | Agents used excessive force and denied medical care, so damages should be available under Bivens. | Bivens does not apply to border agents or this context. | No Bivens remedy in this new context; claim dismissed. |
| Fourth Amendment (excessive force, search) | Unwarranted search and use of force violated his rights. | Supreme Court has refused Bivens extension to border context. | Fourth Amendment Bivens claim not cognizable. |
| Fifth/Sixth Amendment (due process, counsel) | Denied translation, counsel, and timely care violates rights. | Bivens not recognized for these claims outside employment context. | Claims not cognizable under Bivens. |
| Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments | Denied medical care; equal protection and due process infringed. | Not proper amendments for non-prisoners or federal actors. | Claims must be analyzed under Fifth, but are not actionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes limited remedy for constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens remedy for Fifth Amendment gender discrimination in federal employment)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment medical care claims for prisoners)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (Supreme Court has warned against expanding Bivens remedies)
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (explicitly refused to extend Bivens to border agent conduct)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (declined Bivens remedy for border agent excessive force)
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (Bivens suits cannot be brought against federal agencies)