451 F.Supp.3d 306
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiff Jesus Prado, a 60-year-old immigrant with major neurocognitive disorder and HIV, lived in supportive housing and received mental-health treatment before his 2015 arrest.
- On Oct. 27, 2015, ICE agents with an administrative immigration warrant entered Prado’s apartment pre-dawn, pushed him onto his bed, searched the unit, handcuffed him, and took him into custody.
- ICE personnel took and discarded Prado’s prescription medications; he was transferred to Bergen County Jail and detained from Oct. 27, 2015 to Apr. 19, 2016.
- At Bergen, Prado initially received no medication for five days, then wrong medications; proper prescriptions began only after his physician intervened, but administration remained improper for months, causing daily vomiting and diarrhea.
- Prado’s obstructive uropathy required surgery; counsel repeatedly notified ICE, but approval and treatment were delayed nearly two months before the procedure occurred; an immigration judge released Prado on Apr. 19, 2016.
- Prado sued under Bivens and the FTCA against ICE agents and the United States; defendants moved to dismiss; the Court granted in part and denied in part, allowing most claims to proceed and ordering an answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1252(g) jurisdiction bar | Prado’s unlawful arrest/detention claims do not arise from commencement of removal proceedings and are independent constitutional claims | §1252(g) bars district-court jurisdiction over claims "arising from" commencement of removal proceedings, including arrest/detention | Court retained jurisdiction; unlawful-arrest/detention claims fall outside §1252(g) scope |
| FTCA: negligent medical care (medication misadministration) | ICE had non-delegable duties under ICE Detention Standards (transfer med info, 7-day supply); ICE negligence in failing to ensure continuity of care | Government immune where medical care was delegated to independent contractor (Bergen) under IGSA | FTCA claim survives: ICE may be directly liable for negligent acts (failure to transfer info / supply meds) because duty not fully delegated |
| FTCA: delayed outside-treatment/surgery | ICE retained pre-approval authority under IGSA; delay in approving surgery is negligent and not delegated away | IGSA places responsibility for medical care on Bergen; sovereign immunity bars FTCA for contractor-provided care | FTCA claim survives: retention of pre-approval means government did not delegate entire duty; delay plausibly negligent |
| Bivens remedy available | Prado alleges unconstitutional warrantless entry/search and seizure akin to core Bivens facts; Bivens remedy should extend to ICE agents | Post-Abbasi, expanding Bivens is disfavored; INA’s scheme and different statutory context counsel hesitation | Court finds no meaningful difference from core Bivens search-and-seizure context and no special factors counseling hesitation; Bivens claim permitted |
| Trespass / administrative exhaustion (28 U.S.C. §2675) | Prado exhausted FTCA claim for personal injury arising from intrusion; personal-injury damages from trespass were presented | Prado’s administrative claim did not seek property damages; trespass traditionally seeks property-based relief so claim is unexhausted/limited | Court: trespass claim allowed as pleaded personal-injury flowing directly from intrusion; exhaustion as to personal-injury was adequate |
| Abuse of process | Prado contends warrant scope was exceeded to gain entry (collateral objective) | Defendants: no collateral objective pleaded beyond effecting arrest; abuse of process requires ulterior purpose | Dismissed: Prado failed to allege a collateral objective outside legitimate process ends |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) | ICE knew Prado’s mental-health vulnerability; the arrest conduct endangered his physical safety and caused genuine emotional harm | ICE argues no duty specific to Prado; officers cannot be charged with knowing mental condition of all arrestees | NIED claim survives: specific duty plausibly alleged given Prado’s known vulnerability; conduct plausibly caused fear for physical safety |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized an implied damages remedy for unconstitutional search and seizure by federal agents)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (established the two-step framework for extending Bivens and cautioned against judicial expansion)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (clarified the limits of §1252(g) and that not every claim that "arises from" removal proceedings is barred)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (interpreted §1252(g) and the scope of judicial review over immigration actions)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (noted the role of Congress and special factors in Bivens extensions)
- Edison v. United States, 822 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussed when FTCA liability is barred by delegation of medical duties to contractors)
- Lanuza v. Love, 899 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2018) (held that INA’s removal scheme does not preclude Bivens damages for constitutional deprivations outside removal proceedings)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (explained Rule 12(b)(1) and that courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings)