Olukayode Ojo v. Ann Luong
709 F. App'x 113
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- On July 11, 2011, FBI and New Jersey police stopped Olukayode Ojo, searched his car and person, interrogated him, and seized evidence later used at his criminal trial for wire fraud and false ID; Ojo was convicted.
- Ojo filed a civil complaint (Bivens against federal agents; § 1983 against state officers) alleging First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment violations arising from the stop, search, phone tracing, and interrogation.
- The District Court screened and dismissed Ojo’s First and Fourth Amendment claims as untimely and dismissed Fifth Amendment claims against FBI agents in their official capacities; it allowed individual-capacity Fifth Amendment claims to proceed.
- After motions, the District Court denied leave to amend and dismissed Ojo’s remaining Fifth Amendment individual-capacity claims under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding his statements were not used at trial and any derivative evidence was not obtained from compelled statements.
- Ojo appealed; the Third Circuit affirmed, ruling claims untimely, sovereign immunity barred official-capacity claims, amendment would be futile, and Fifth Amendment claims lacked merit because challenged statements/evidence were not used at trial or were independently obtained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of First and Fourth Amendment claims | Ojo argued claims timely or tolled due to alleged gov’t fraud/perjury | Claims accrued July 11, 2011 (or by suppression motion April 2012); two-year statute of limitations; no tolling shown | Dismissed as untimely; tolling not shown |
| Fifth Amendment (official-capacity) | Ojo sought relief against FBI agents in official capacity | Federal sovereign immunity bars damages against agents in official capacity | Dismissed with prejudice on sovereign immunity grounds |
| Fifth Amendment (individual-capacity) — use of compelled statements at trial | Ojo claimed Miranda-violative statements and derivative evidence were used at trial | Defendants: statements not used at trial; evidence (201 phone, texts) was known/obtained independently before statements | Dismissed: statements not used at trial; derivative-evidence theory fails |
| Leave to Amend | Ojo requested leave to add John Doe defendants | Defendants argued amendment would be futile and plaintiff gave no proposed pleading | Denied: plaintiff failed to specify amendment; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes a damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (protection against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation)
- Renda v. King, 347 F.3d 550 (3d Cir. 2003) (Miranda violation gives rise to civil claim only if coerced statements were used at trial)
- Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 769 F.3d 850 (statute-of-limitations accrual for § 1983 Fourth Amendment claims)
- Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181 (statute-of-limitations accrual and related timeliness principles for § 1983 claims)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360 (3d Cir. 2000) (standards for denial of leave to amend when plaintiff fails to propose amendment)
- Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212 (review standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (conviction-bar to civil claims that would imply conviction invalid)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (limitations accrual principles where civil claims implicate criminal convictions)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 2003 (addresses Bivens context and prudential limits on extending Bivens remedies)