Pellegrino v. United States Transportation Security Administration
855 F. Supp. 2d 343
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Pellegrino and Waldman sued after a July 29, 2006 airport security encounter at Philadelphia International Airport escalated from screening to arrest and criminal prosecution.
- Pellegrino requested a private search due to tense handling; Abdul-Malik changed gloves, which allegedly contaminated items and provoked hostility.
- Private screening occurred in a private room; items were rummaged, damaged, altered, or discarded; Labbee watched without intervening.
- Pellegrino was re-detained, driver’s license confiscated, and a Philadelphia police officer conducted a public arrest; criminal charges followed, later resolved in Pellegrino’s favor.
- TSA civil action and civil rights-related theories followed, with the current federal suit filed November 18, 2009; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied in part, addressing FTCA, Bivens, FOIA/Privacy Act, and APA theories and their timeliness and viability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA jurisdiction and timeliness | Pellegrino/Waldman timely presented claims to TSA; final denial occurred in 2009 | FTCA claims time-barred or improperly framed | FTCA claims timely; jurisdiction may attach with discovery to determine scope of FTCA liability under 2680(h) |
| Whether TSOs fall within the 2680(h) investigative or law enforcement officer exception | TSOs are empowered to conduct searches and influence outcomes; may fall within exception | TSOs merely conduct screenings, not within 2680(h) | Discovery needed to resolve whether TSOs are within the exception; not resolved at this stage |
| Malicious prosecution/false arrest under FTCA | TSOs knowingly supplied false information to procure prosecution; absence of probable cause shown | There was probable cause based on witnesses and records | Plaintiffs sufficiently pled absence of probable cause at this stage; malicious prosecution claims viable under FTCA |
| Bivens claims timeliness and scope; constitutional claims against TSA | Bivens claims based on First, Fourth, Sixth Amendments; timely for actions arising from the incident | Some claims untimely; agency-wide accountability not warranted | Timeliness issues analyzed; only timely malicious prosecution-related Bivens claims proceed; others dismissed or not actionable |
| APA/FOIA/Privacy Act claims; exhaustion requirements | TSA failed to respond timely; administrative remedies exhausted constructively | No viable APA claim; exhaustion and scope disputed | FOIA/Privacy Act claims kept alive pending Vaughn index; administrative exhaustion considerations apply; APA claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. (2006)) (retaliatory prosecution requires absence of probable cause to proceed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. (2009)) (pleading standard: must plead plausible claims, not mere recitals)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. (2007)) (pleading must show facial plausibility)
- Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75 (3d Cir. (2007)) (malicious prosecution elements and deprivation of liberty)
- Mercke v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. (2000)) (probable cause and absence of malice standard in malicious prosecution)