Mirmehdi v. United States
689 F.3d 975
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mirmehdi family, Iranian nationals, entered the United States at different times and later faced immigration detention and bond revocation proceedings.
- Bond revocation in 2001 largely relied on the L.A. Cell Form; agents testified that it listed MEK members, affiliates, and supporters.
- Mirmehdis denied MEK involvement and alleged Castillo knew the Form was a list of rally attendees for NCRI, not MEK members.
- District court dismissed most claims; remaining claims against Castillo and MacDowell for unlawful detention, and against others for related civil rights violations, were litigated and partially resolved.
- Plaintiffs obtained withholding of removal; years later they pursued Bivens, §1985(2), and FTCA theories seeking monetary damages.
- The court ultimately denied a Bivens remedy, upheld discretionary-function immunity under FTCA, and affirmed dismissal of other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens provides a remedy for unlawful detention of aliens in deportation proceedings. | Mirmehdis seek monetary damages for constitutional detention without a remedy elsewhere. | Government contends no Bivens remedy is available in immigration context given existing processes. | Bivens not extended; existing immigration habeas and other remedies negate implied action. |
| Whether Castillo and MacDowell can be liable under §1985(2) for witness intimidation/conspiracy. | Prejudice from intimidation would have affected testimony and case outcomes. | Prejudice not shown; intimidation claims fail without demonstrated impact on case. | No cognizable §1985(2) claim; lack of prejudice defeats relief. |
| Whether FTCA false imprisonment claim against United States survives discretionary-function immunity and litigation privilege. | Castillo's false testimony caused imprisonment and is actionable under FTCA. | Detention decisions are discretionary and immune; California litigation privilege bars recovery for testimony. | Discretionary-function exception applies; California privilege bars FTCA claim. |
| Whether the Mirmehdis should be allowed to amend their complaint post-Iqbal/Twombly standards. | Amendment should be allowed for additional factual content under liberal standards. | Amendment would be futile given lack of viable theories. | Amendment denied; no viable amendments could change outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (U.S. 2007) (two-step Bivens framework; caution in extending remedies)
- Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (contextualizing Bivens in immigration/deportation settings)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (creation of private rights of action generally for federal violations constrained)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1988) (limits on extending damages remedies in Social Security context)
- Malesko v. United States, 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (limitations on Bivens in private contractor contexts)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1979) (employment-due-process Bivens remedy example)
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrim. Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (aliens' rights, selective enforcement in deportation context)