Manansingh v. United States of America
2:20-cv-01139
| D. Nev. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Chandan Manansingh and Angela Nairns sued under Bivens and the FTCA over a probationary search (April 1, 2016) and subsequent federal prosecution, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) among other claims.
- The Court previously dismissed most counts with prejudice and permitted amendment of the IIED claim against the United States; Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 7, 2021.
- The United States moved to dismiss Count 10 (IIED under the FTCA) on timeliness and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds; Plaintiffs had filed an administrative tort claim on June 24, 2019.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) a FTCA claim must be presented to the agency within two years of accrual; thus claims accruing before June 24, 2017 are untimely here.
- The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ continuing-accrual theory tied to the ongoing prosecution, finding accrual occurs when the IIED elements existed (linked to the April 2016 search and related events), and held only post–June 24, 2017 conduct could support a timely IIED claim.
- The only potentially timely allegation (prolonged detention/supervision from the United States’ appeal) failed as a matter of law because the appeal was prosecutorial (not covered by § 2680(h)) and was not so egregious as to be outside all bounds of decency; Count 10 was dismissed with prejudice and final judgment entered on multiple counts under Rule 54(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of FTCA IIED claim (accrual date) | IIED continued accruing during prosecution and until June 2018; ongoing distress tolls accrual | Accrual occurs when all elements exist; administrative claim filed 6/24/2019 makes claims accruing before 6/24/2017 untimely | Court rejected continuing-accrual; claims accruing prior to 6/24/2017 are time-barred |
| Whether prolonged detention/supervision from appeal is actionable IIED post-cutoff | Prolonged custody and RRC placement caused severe emotional distress and is timely | Appeal and related supervision were prosecutorial acts and not actionable under FTCA; appeal not frivolous or outside bounds | Claim based on the appeal/supervision fails as matter of law; not within §2680(h) exception and not extreme enough |
| Harassment of Nairns at revocation hearing | Prosecutor’s harassment during revocation hearing caused severe distress | Harassment occurred June 22, 2017, before the two-year cutoff; therefore time-barred | Allegations are time-barred |
| Continued supervision by Defendant Mummey through June 23, 2017 | Ongoing supervision caused distress | Supervision ended June 23, 2017 (before cutoff); accrued then | Allegation is time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal agents for constitutional violations)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual occurs when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (at pleading stage, allegations are taken as true and viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Edison v. United States, 822 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2016) (sovereign immunity waiver under FTCA is a jurisdictional question)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Olivero v. Lowe, 995 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 2000) (elements of IIED under Nevada law)
- Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 953 P.2d 24 (Nev. 1998) (standard for extreme and outrageous conduct under Nevada law)
- Sheehan v. United States, 896 F.2d 1168 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing limits of FTCA liability for prosecutorial actions)