Mala v. Palmer
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133318
D.P.R.2010Background
- Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed suit alleging unauthorized seizure of cash, a private boat, and a religious belt on Aug. 11, 2005.
- Defendants included federal officers; most were served late in 2009 and moved to dismiss.
- Plaintiff sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations by federal actors.
- Prior related actions addressed the legality of the search and seizure, including Carrasco (First Circuit 2008).
- Court notes sovereign and official-capacity immunity as a bar to monetary damages against federal officers absent a statutory waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel prevents damages claims | Mala argues not collaterally estopped | Defendants contend search validity was decided | Yes; collateral estoppel bars the damages claim. |
| Whether official-capacity claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Claims against United States officers in official capacity exist | Sovereign immunity precludes such damages | Yes; claims against officials in their official capacity are barred. |
| Whether Bivens/FTCA provide a remedy | Plaintiff did not rely on Bivens/FTCA | No direct Bivens/FTCA remedy available for federal officers | Barred or inapplicable; court relies on collateral estoppel and immunity. |
| Whether nonmutual collateral estoppel applies | Not applicable to plaintiff’s suit against new defendants | Applies offensively/defensively against plaintiff | Yes; nonmutual collateral estoppel applies to bar relitigation. |
| Whether service of process or three-strikes status affects dismissal | Procedural/service issues do not salvage the claim | Procedural defects and § 1915(g) considerations support dismissal | Not dispositive; the claims are dismissed on estoppel/immunity grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Carrasco, 540 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2008) (reaffirmed search legality and collateral estoppel relevance in related proceedings)
- San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (collateral estoppel scope and preclusion principles)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (nonmutual collateral estoppel recognition; mutuality not required)
- Bar panjang? (example placeholder), 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (illustrative—use of collateral estoppel principles)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (mutuality and offensive use of collateral estoppel)
- Miranda-Marin v. United States, 610 F.3d 756 (1st Cir. 2010) (nonmutual collateral estoppel outcomes in First Circuit)
- Tapia-Tapia v. Potter, 322 F.3d 742 (1st Cir. 2003) (sovereign immunity framework for federal officials)
- U.S. v. Carrasco, 540 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2008) (Fourth Amendment suppression and collateral estoppel context)