Watson v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13805
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Davino Watson, born in Jamaica, entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1998 and derived U.S. citizenship upon his father’s naturalization in 2002, though ICE misidentified records and treated him as an alien.
- After a 2007 state conviction, ICE investigated Watson’s citizenship, made multiple investigative errors (failed contact, retrieved wrong A-files), issued a Notice to Appear, and detained him; removal proceedings ran through 2008 and resulted in an IJ order of removal.
- Watson repeatedly asserted citizenship, applied for an N-600 certificate (initially denied under BIA precedent In re Hines), litigated through the BIA and Second Circuit, and was released in November 2011 when the BIA later concluded Hines did not bar his claim and terminated proceedings.
- Watson sued under the FTCA for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and negligent delay in delivering his certificate of citizenship; the district court found liability on false imprisonment (but limited damages), dismissed malicious prosecution and negligent-investigation claims, and rejected negligence for delayed certificate for lack of damages.
- The government cross-appealed the false imprisonment judgment as time-barred under the FTCA’s two-year statute; the Second Circuit reversed as to false imprisonment (untimely) and affirmed dismissal/defeats of the other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual / SOL for false imprisonment (FTCA § 2401(b)) | Watson argued accrual occurred when he received his citizenship certificate (Nov 26, 2013) or was equitably tolled until counsel informed him of FTCA rights (July 31, 2014). | Government argued claim accrued earlier (once legal process attached) and thus administrative claim filed Oct 30, 2013 was untimely. | Claim accrued by at least IJ removal order (Nov 13, 2008); FTCA two-year window expired before administrative filing — false imprisonment untimely; equitable tolling denied. |
| Equitable tolling of FTCA limitations | Watson relied on limited education, depression, government misstatements of noncitizen status, and lack of knowledge of FTCA rights to toll the SOL. | Government argued those circumstances were not extraordinary and did not cause the missed filing. | Court held plaintiff did not establish the requisite extraordinary cause that prevented timely filing; equitable tolling not warranted. |
| Malicious prosecution under FTCA / § 2680(h) exception | Watson argued the malicious-prosecution exception for investigative or law-enforcement officers applied (ICE/DHS officers). | Government argued § 2680(h) bars claim or plaintiff cannot prove required state-law elements (malice). | Court recognized ICE are investigative officers but held Watson failed to prove malice under New York law; malicious-prosecution claim fails. |
| Negligent investigation and private-analogue requirement | Watson contended ICE negligently investigated and failed to follow internal regulations; also claimed negligent delay in certificate issuance caused post-release harms. | Government argued New York law provides no private-law analogue for negligent-investigation claims or duty to follow agency rules; also argued no cognizable damages for certificate delay. | Negligent-investigation claim dismissed for lack of a New York private analogue. Negligent-delay claim failed because plaintiff did not prove causally related, cognizable damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (establishes accrual rule for false imprisonment and distinction from malicious prosecution)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (limits habeas-related accrual principles; discussed and distinguished)
- Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (recognizes ICE/DHS personnel as investigative or law-enforcement officers under § 2680(h))
- McGowan v. United States, 825 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2016) (FTCA private-analogue requirement; agency‑rule violations alone do not create new state-law duty)
- Bernard v. United States, 25 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1994) (New York does not permit negligence claims for law-enforcement investigative failures intrinsic to arrests/prosecutions)
- Harper v. Ercole, 648 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (equitable-tolling requires extraordinary circumstance that caused untimeliness)
- Phillips v. Generations Family Health Ctr., 723 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for equitable tolling abuse of discretion)