2:19-cv-00948
E.D. Pa.Jul 31, 2019Background
- Dr. Elias Karkalas, a Pennsylvania physician, approved online prescriptions for Fioricet (contains butalbital, a Schedule III ingredient) via Rx Limited; DEA diversion investigator Kimberly Brill and DOJ prosecutor Linda Marks led an investigation and presentation to a Minnesota grand jury.
- A Minnesota grand jury indicted Karkalas (and others) in 2013 for Controlled Substances Act violations, mail/wire fraud, and money laundering; Karkalas was arrested in Pennsylvania and detained pretrial in Philadelphia and elsewhere.
- Marks prosecuted the case in Minnesota; the government dismissed the CSA counts during trial and a jury acquitted Karkalas of remaining charges in 2017.
- Karkalas sued Marks, Brill (federal officials) under Bivens for unlawful prosecution and pretrial detention (alleging false grand jury testimony) and sued the United States under the FTCA for malicious prosecution.
- The district court dismissed Marks and Brill for lack of personal jurisdiction (Pennsylvania) and, alternatively, on the merits: refused to extend Bivens, found prosecutorial/qualified immunity, and dismissed FTCA claims (sovereign immunity, discretionary-function exception, and failure to plead lack of probable cause).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Marks and Brill in Eastern District of PA | Marks and Brill appeared/acted in PA (detention hearing, witness interviews, arrest) creating jurisdiction | Defendants lack sufficient contacts with PA; conduct targeted plaintiff only (Walden) | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (contacts insufficient; nexus via plaintiff insufficient) |
| Imply Bivens remedy for malicious prosecution/false grand jury presentation | Karkalas seeks Bivens damages for unlawful prosecution and pretrial detention | Extension of Bivens is disfavored; alternative remedies exist; special factors counsel hesitation | No Bivens extension (new context; alternative remedies and special factors weigh against) |
| Immunity for Marks and Brill (absolute/qualified) | Karkalas alleges knowing false testimony and bad faith prosecution | Marks entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for advocacy; both entitled to qualified immunity because law unsettled re: Fioricet | Prosecutorial immunity bars claims against Marks; qualified immunity bars claims against both |
| FTCA claim (malicious prosecution) against United States | United States liable for malicious prosecution of its employees | Sovereign immunity exceptions: Marks is not an "investigative or law enforcement officer"; discretionary-function exception; plaintiff fails to plead lack of probable cause | FTCA claims dismissed: no waiver re: Marks, Brill is an "investigative officer" but discretionary-function exception applies; plaintiff fails to plead absence of probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of an implied damages remedy against federal officers under the Fourth Amendment)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (courts should not extend Bivens to new contexts; rigorous inquiry and special factors analysis)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (personal-jurisdiction requires defendant's own contacts with the forum)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (unlawful pretrial detention is a Fourth Amendment claim in § 1983 context — not dispositive for Bivens extension)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (limited recognized contexts for Bivens remedies)
- Vanderklok v. United States, 868 F.3d 189 (court declined to extend Bivens to certain nontraditional federal actors)
- Farah v. Weyker, 926 F.3d 492 (Eighth Circuit refused to extend Bivens for alleged false grand jury testimony; alternative remedies weigh against extension)