Morales v. Chadbourne
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19084
D.R.I.2014Background
- Ada Morales, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Guatemala, was arrested by Rhode Island police on state charges in May 2009; during intake officials reported her foreign birth to ICE.
- ICE issued an I-247 detainer stating an investigation had been initiated and requesting the state hold Morales up to 48 hours; ICE did not interview or verify her citizenship before issuing the detainer.
- The state court released Morales on personal recognizance, but the ACI (RIDOC) kept her in custody solely on the ICE detainer; she spent an additional night in custody and alleged denial of medication and harassment.
- ICE took Morales into federal custody the next day, verified her citizenship after hours of interviews, and released her; Morales alleges a prior similar 2004 detention by ICE.
- Morales sued federal and state officials asserting Fourth Amendment (unlawful seizure), Fifth Amendment (procedural due process and equal protection), §1983 claims against the RIDOC director, FTCA claims, state tort claims, and sought prospective injunctive relief.
- The court resolved multiple motions: dismissed all claims against one ICE employee (Mercurio) and the federal procedural due-process claim, but allowed Fourth Amendment, equal protection (against Donaghy), FTCA, §1983 and state-law claims, and prospective injunctive relief to proceed against remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ICE detainer and resulting custody violated the Fourth Amendment (illegal seizure) | Morales: detainer lacked probable cause; detention to investigate status is unlawful | Fed & State: detainer and RIDOC compliance lawful under 8 C.F.R. §287.7 and not a new Fourth Amendment seizure | Court: Allegations plausibly show no probable cause; Fourth Amendment claims proceed against Donaghy, Chadbourne, Riccio, and A.T. Wall (RIDOC) |
| Whether defendants are liable individually (supervisory liability for supervisors Chadbourne and Riccio) | Morales: supervisors implemented or tolerated policies leading to unconstitutional detainers and were deliberately indifferent | Supervisors: pleadings insufficient to show affirmative involvement; no respondeat superior | Court: Complaint plausibly alleges affirmative link and deliberate indifference; supervisory claims survive dismissal |
| Whether procedural due process required pre‑detainer notice/hearing (Fifth Amendment) | Morales: ICE issued detainer without notice/opportunity to be heard | Federal defendants: no clearly established right to pre‑detainer hearing; detainers are administrative and temporary | Court: Right not clearly established; qualified immunity attaches — federal procedural due process claims dismissed |
| Whether equal protection claim (detention based on national origin) is viable | Morales: detainer issuance was motivated by national origin/race (foreign birth/surname) | Donaghy: birth abroad is a permissible investigative factor; insufficient comparator pleading | Court: Complaint plausibly alleges discriminatory purpose; claim against Donaghy survives and qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must allege each government official's own unconstitutional conduct)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (detaining solely to verify immigration status raises constitutional concerns)
- Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963) (seizures require warrant or probable cause)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (custodial detention implicates Fourth Amendment safeguards)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (probable cause required for pretrial detention)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard regarding genuine issues of material fact)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established law inquiry for qualified immunity)
- Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43 (1993) (detainer is a request, not a mandatory warrant)