Liranzo v. United States
690 F.3d 78
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Liranzo, a US citizen, was wrongly identified as a permanent resident and detained during removal proceedings after a NYS conviction.
- ICE detained him for about 105 days across NY and Louisiana due to a detainer while pursuing removal.
- He sued the United States under the FTCA for false arrest/imprisonment and related torts, after administrative remedies were exhausted.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on no private analogue to immigration detention under the FTCA.
- This Court reverses in part, holding there is a private analogue to the immigrant-detention conduct under state law, and remands for further proceedings on the FTCA claims.
- The court affirmes the district court on Liranzo’s Fourth Amendment claim and remands to address merits and applicable federal standards for privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA private analogue existence? | Liranzo contends a private analogue exists for immigration detention. | United States maintains no private analogue exists for detention by immigration officials. | FTCA private analogue exists; remand for merits |
| Role of Caban II in analogue analysis? | Caban II supports private analogue for immigration detentions. | Caban II controls by showing no analogue. | Caban II does not foreclose analogue; not dispositive |
| Remand scope and standard? | Merits should be reached after determining applicable standards. | Court should consider dismissal or summary judgment if merits show privilege. | Remand for district court to determine merits and which federal standards apply |
| Whether Fourth Amendment claim survives? | Fourth Amendment claim remains viable on appeal. | Fourth Amendment claim should be dismissed. | Fourth Amendment claim affirmed as dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955) (private analogue need not be identical; private analogue exists when government action can be analogized to private liability)
- Rayonier Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315 (1957) (state-law analogue assessment when private liability would exist for similar negligence)
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (private analogue framework considered; military context narrow liability)
- United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005) ( Olson: private-entity liability standard governs FTCA attribution; look to private liability framework)
- Caban v. United States, 671 F.2d 1230 (2d Cir. 1982) (FTCA false imprisonment; private analogue in immigration context debated)
- Caban v. United States, 728 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1984) (Caban II: immigration detentions judged under federal standards; discusses privilege and private analogue interplay)
- Akutowicz v. United States, 859 F.2d 1123 (2d Cir. 1988) (withdrawal of citizenship as quasi-adjudicative; no private analogue)
- Muniz v. United States, 374 U.S. 150 (1963) (prison confinement context shows FTCA analogue possible outside military context)
- United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963) (FTCA applicability to private analogue in non-military context)