Rodriguez v. ATF UC 3749, 3:18-cv-00899

Background:

Plaintiff Enedeo Rodriguez, Jr. (pro se) sued federal and local officers under Bivens and §1983 alleging: (a) Lessner (ATF) submitted a false affidavit to obtain a warrant to search Rodriguez’s home and then participated in the search; (b) Bennett and Lerch (ATF) and several state/county officers conducted warrantless searches of his business/vehicles; and (c) an unidentified SWAT officer deployed a flash‑bang in the presence of the plaintiff’s child.
The Court previously screened complaints, allowed certain Fourth Amendment claims to proceed against specific defendants, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and remanded on other issues.
Defendants Bennett, Lerch, and Lessner moved to dismiss; Magistrate Judge Martin previously allowed defendants to replead certain affirmative defenses (including qualified immunity), and Rodriguez objected — objections overruled here.
The Court assumed, but did not decide, that a Bivens remedy might be available for a false‑affidavit claim, and resolved the motion on qualified immunity and pleading grounds instead.
The Court: (a) granted the joint motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice Rodriguez’s false‑affidavit and Lessner‑participation claims against Lessner and the warrantless‑search claims against Bennett and Lerch; (b) left claims pending against Spadafora and Scott (home search/arrest) and against Stutsman, Mockler, and Campbell (business search), but ordered Rodriguez to respond to an attached November 1, 2016 state warrant for the business; and (c) denied leave to amend to add Bennett as the flash‑bang thrower as futile.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Magistrate Judge Martin’s order (allowing amendment of affirmative defenses) was clearly erroneous	Objection that magistrate improperly allowed defendants to amend and replead defenses (including repleading immunity defenses)	Magistrate properly allowed limited repleading; qualified immunity still pled	Court overruled Rodriguez’s objections; no clear error
Whether a Bivens claim based on an allegedly false affidavit by ATF Agent Lessner may proceed (and if so, whether Lessner is entitled to qualified immunity)	Alleged Lessner knowingly/recklessly included false or omitted material facts from CSs and investigation that were necessary to probable cause	Even assuming a Bivens remedy, Lessner argues qualified immunity and that omissions/falsehoods were immaterial or not plausibly alleged; supporting affidavits corroborated key facts	Court assumed but did not decide Bivens applicability and dismissed claim on qualified immunity grounds: Rodriguez failed to plausibly allege that Lessner knowingly/recklessly made material false statements or omissions
Whether Lessner’s participation in the execution of the home search violated the Fourth Amendment	Participation in execution of an allegedly invalid/tainted warrant rendered the home search unreasonable	Warrant was supported by probable cause (or any alleged falsities were immaterial); execution pursuant to warrant is generally reasonable	Dismissed: because plaintiff did not plausibly show the warrant lacked probable cause, the participation claim fails
Whether Bennett and Lerch can be held liable for a warrantless search/destruction of vehicles at Rodriguez’s business/home	Rodriguez alleges agents tore vehicle consoles and caused damage while searching vehicles (claim initially framed as warrantless search of business)	Defendants contend the search of vehicles at the residence was within scope of warrant and any damage was reasonable; plaintiff failed to plead individual conduct by Bennett/Lerch sufficiently	Dismissed with prejudice as to Bennett and Lerch: plaintiff’s Amended Complaint did not allege vehicles were at business, did not seek leave to amend, and pleaded facts insufficient to show unnecessary/excessive destruction
Whether leave to amend should be granted to identify Bayne Bennett as the unknown SWAT officer who deployed a flash‑bang in the presence of a child	Rodriguez says he newly discovered Bennett’s role from interrogatory answers and seeks to add Bennett as the flash‑bang actor causing child injuries	Bennett did not object to identification timing but asserts prior rulings preclude adding the child as a plaintiff; amendment would be futile	Denied: Rule 16 good cause satisfied (discovery response timing), but Rule 15 amendment would be futile because the core injury claims would impermissibly seek to add Rodriguez’s daughter as a plaintiff and prior rulings preclude that

Key Cases Cited

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized an implied damages remedy against federal agents for Fourth Amendment violations)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) (new Bivens causes must be approached cautiously; expansion disfavored)
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) (further limited the expansion of Bivens remedies)
Greenpoint Tactical Income Fund LLC v. Pettigrew, 38 F.4th 555 (7th Cir. 2022) (analyzed false‑affidavit Bivens claims and proceeded on qualified immunity rather than definitively extending Bivens)
Edwards v. Jolliff‑Blake, 907 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2018) (clearly established that knowingly or recklessly false statements or material omissions in a warrant affidavit violate the Fourth Amendment)
Hart v. Mannina, 798 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2015) (immaterial omissions or falsehoods do not establish a Fourth Amendment violation)
Johnson, 580 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff must plausibly allege the officer had reason to doubt informant’s accuracy to show recklessness)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for individual liability; conclusory assertions insufficient)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim above speculative level)