Mendia v. Garcia
165 F. Supp. 3d 861
| N.D. Cal. | 2016Background
- Mendia, a U.S. citizen, was in state pretrial custody in 2007 when two ICE agents (Garcia and Chang) interviewed him, placed an ICE detainer, and allegedly told him he would be deported if he refused to talk.
- Mendia alleges the detainer prevented bail bondsmen from posting bail and blocked plea/bail negotiations, keeping him detained until a later state-court release; he filed administrative FTCA claims and then federal suits asserting FTCA, Bivens, and declaratory-judgment claims.
- After earlier pleadings and a Ninth Circuit reversal on standing, Mendia sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) adding FTCA counts (false imprisonment, negligence, IIED, negligent infliction, abuse of process), Bivens claims (First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth Amendments), DJA declaratory claims, and a new defendant (ICE Field Office Director Timothy Aitken).
- Defendants opposed amendment and moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; the court considered judicial notice of detainer and court records and evaluated Rule 15(a) factors (bad faith, delay, prejudice, prior amendments, futility) alongside Rule 12(b)(6)/futility analysis.
- The court granted judicial notice of the immigration detainers and certain state-court records, found no bad faith/undue delay/prejudice sufficient to deny leave, and analyzed each proposed claim for futility and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Leave to amend under Rule 15(a) | Mendia sought leave to add FTCA, Bivens, DJA claims and a new defendant due to counsel and new facts | Defendants argued undue delay, prejudice, prior amendments, and futility | Leave granted in part: amendment allowed for certain FTCA and Bivens claims; denied for others and for adding Aitken |
| 2. FTCA claims viability (false imprisonment, negligence, IIED, negligent infliction, abuse of process) | Detainer caused inability to obtain bail and emotional harm; state-law torts apply via FTCA | US argued failure to meet state tort elements and sovereign-immunity exceptions | FTCA claims for false imprisonment, negligence, and IIED allowed; negligent infliction and abuse of process denied (abuse of process futile because detainer is administrative, not judicial process) |
| 3. Availability of Bivens remedy for constitutional claims (First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth) | Mendia (a U.S. citizen) seeks Bivens damages for detainer-based violations; alleged lack of alternative remedies | Agents argued INA remedies/habeas, plenary immigration powers, special factors, and qualified immunity | Bivens allowed for First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure, and Fifth Amendment equal protection; Bivens denied as to Fifth substantive due process and self-incrimination, and Eighth excessive bail claim futile or barred by qualified immunity |
| 4. Qualified immunity for agents | Mendia alleged facts showing lack of probable cause, discriminatory selection, and retaliatory motive | Agents contended rights not clearly established and raised qualified immunity defense | Court found rights were clearly established (probable cause requirement for detainers and non-discrimination) as to First, Fourth, and Fifth (equal protection) claims; agents not entitled to immunity on those claims; immunity sustained for Eighth and substantive due process/self-incrimination claims where elements lacking |
| 5. Declaratory relief (DJA) | Mendia requested declarations that ICE policies/practices violated constitutional rights and deprived him of process | Defendants argued lack of Article III standing for prospective relief and that declaratory relief would be redundant with damages claims | Declaratory-judgment claims denied as futile: mostly retrospective and redundant with Bivens/FTCA damages claims; no showing of likelihood of future injury for prospective relief |
| 6. Addition of Timothy Aitken as a defendant | Mendia sought to add supervisory ICE director based on policy/supervision allegations and hoped to develop facts in discovery | Defendants argued no specific allegations showing Aitken’s personal involvement; FTCA claims only proper against the United States | Addition denied as futile: TAC lacked facts showing Aitken’s personal participation or unlawful policy; FTCA claims cannot name individual federal employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards and supervisory liability limits for constitutional torts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1980) (Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment violations by federal prison officials)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (U.S. 2007) (framework for evaluating whether to extend Bivens; special factors and alternative remedies)
- Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (declined Bivens extension in deportation context where INA/habeas provided remedies)
- Morales v. Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208 (1st Cir. 2015) (recognition that detainers/immigration stops require probable cause and denial of qualified immunity in similar facts)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice is the key Rule 15(a) factor)