González v. Moreno
202 F. Supp. 3d 220
D.P.R.2016Background
- Plaintiffs bring a Bivens action alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations and due process violations arising from FBI agents’ conduct.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) asserting statute of limitations and qualified immunity defenses.
- On Oct. 23, 2013, agents entered Plaintiffs’ Cabo Rojo home without a warrant, searched two computers, and seized Pagán-González’s laptop after obtaining consent.
- December 11–12, 2013, Pagán-González was charged and arrested based on evidence obtained from the seizure; he was detained until bond was posted.
- January 9, 2014, a grand jury indicted him for two counts of transporting and receiving child pornography; the case was later dismissed on June 20, 2014.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in 2014; the court grants dismissal, finding the Fourth Amendment claim time-barred and the claims lacking viable grounds on immunity and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourth Amendment claim based on the Oct. 23, 2013 entry/search is time-barred | Pagán-González argues accrual began Dec. 12, 2013 | Defendants contend accrual occurred on Oct. 23, 2013 | Time-barred; accrual began Oct. 23, 2013 |
| Whether the arrest and prosecution claims are barred by qualified immunity | Plaintiffs allege false statements and invalid arrest violated rights | Defendants contend rights were not clearly established or actions were reasonable | Qualified immunity applies; claims with respect to arrest and prosecution dismissed |
| Whether Plaintiffs can plead a viable malicious prosecution claim given probable cause | Plaintiff asserts lack of probable cause and misleading affidavit | Probable cause existed per magistrate and grand jury findings; no malice shown | Malicious prosecution claim failure; probable cause defeats claim |
| Whether exclusion of evidence impacts the civil claims given the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine | Evidence obtained unlawfully could negate probable cause | Exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases; still no viable claim | Exclusion does not salvage claim; not enough to plead violation |
| Whether any Fourth Amendment claim remains for December 12, 2013 home entry under arrest warrant authority | Warrant-based entry may be unconstitutional | Arrest warrant authorized entry; no violation shown | No Fourth Amendment claim follows from Dec. 12, 2013 entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Álamo-Hornedo v. Puig, 745 F.3d 578 (1st Cir. 2014) (one-year Bivens statute of limitations in Puerto Rico applies)
- Centro Médico del Turabo, Inc. v. Feliciano de Melecio, 406 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (accrual and limitations applied under PR law)
- Carreras-Rosa v. Alves-Cruz, 127 F.3d 172 (1st Cir. 1997) (beginnings of limitations counted from day after accrual)
- Gorelik v. Costin, 605 F.3d 118 (1st Cir. 2010) (accrual occurs at time of injury for Fourth Amendment claims)
- Hernández-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2013) (malicious prosecution requires showing of bad faith or misled prosecutors; probable cause defeats claim)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (arrest warrant carries limited authority to enter dwelling with probable cause)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual generally when the plaintiff knows of the injury)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (claims require showing false statements in affidavit were necessary to probable cause)
- United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977) (grand jury indictment not subject to challenge for allegedly unlawfully obtained evidence)