Paret-Ruiz v. United States
847 F. Supp. 2d 289
D.P.R.2012Background
- FTCA suit seeks damages against USA and DEA for plaintiff's arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment on a cocaine-trafficking case.
- DEA is challenged as a proper defendant under FTCA; the case proceeded after initial filings but the court later resolves DEA’s involvement.
- Plaintiff alleges misconduct by DEA during investigations, coercion, and misleading conduct leading to arrest and conviction.
- Plaintiff was indicted Aug. 9, 2005; arrested Aug. 12, 2005; convicted after a 2006 trial, later vacated on appeal (2009).
- Indemnity and administrative prerequisites under FTCA and related doctrines are central to the court’s decision on timeliness and sovereign immunity.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the government’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEA as FTCA defendant | DEA properly named under FTCA. | DEA is not a proper FTCA defendant; only United States may be sued. | DEA improperly named; dismissal granted. |
| Assault claim under FTCA vs. Bivens | Claim is FTCA-based assault/false arrest, not a constitutional Bivens claim. | Assault treated as constitutional/constitutional-FTCA issue; separate theories. | Assault claim denied as to constitutional pathway; FTCA-based pursuit permitted. |
| Statute of limitations on assault, false arrest, false imprisonment | Discovery rule tolls accrual; timely administrative filing. | Two-year FTCA period expired before administrative filing. | Assault barred; false arrest/imprisonment allowed to proceed due to discovery rule. |
| Taking of property (FTCA) and Takings Clause | Property loss claim falls under FTCA and, alternatively, Takings Clause; not untimely. | Sovereign immunity and timing bar both FTCA and Takings claims. | FTCA taking claim plausible; Takings Clause claim time-barred. |
| Malicious prosecution and grand jury indictment | Indictment may have been obtained via lies/misrepresentations affecting probable cause. | Grand jury indictment conclusive on probable cause; need for weighing evidence later. | Malicious prosecution claim not dismissed at this stage; discovery on lies/misrepresentation reserved. |
| Injuries in prison and exhaustion of remedies | Injury in prison should be compensable; exhausted administratively. | FTCA presentment required; injuries not alleged in Form 95; jurisdiction lacking. | Injury-in-prison claim dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donahue v. U.S., 634 F.3d 615 (1st Cir.2011) (discovery rule applicable to FTCA accrual)
- Barrett ex rel. Estate of Barrett v. U.S., 462 F.3d 28 (1st Cir.2006) (administrative exhaustion and limitations limits jurisdiction)
- Acosta v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 445 F.3d 509 (1st Cir.2006) (FTCA accrual and limitations considerations)
- Gonzalez Rucci v. U.S. I.N.S., 405 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.2005) (probable cause and grand jury indictments; weigh evidence to assess mal-proc)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (dismissal standards; pleading requirements)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (1980) (discovery rule and accrual timing)
- Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) (FTCA scope; 2680(c) interpretation)
- Golden Gate Hotel Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 18 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir.1994) (Takings Clause limitations; borrow state law when no federal limit)