Morales v. Chadbourne

996 F.Supp.2d 19

Ada MORALES, Plaintiff,

v.Bruce CHADBOURNE, et al., Defendants.

C.A. No. 12–301–M.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

Feb. 12, 2014.

Mark W. Freel, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, Providence, RI, Katherine Desormeau, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco, CA, Lena Graber, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Aram A. Gavoor, Washington, DC, Melissa S. Leibman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Adam J. Sholes, R.I. Department of Attorney General, Providence, RI, Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. Department of Justice Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN J. McCONNELL, JR., District Judge.

Before the Court are several motions to dismiss brought by certain individual defendants in this case.¹ This lawsuit seeks to resolve three questions: whether the federal government unlawfully detained Ms. Ada Morales in violation of her right to be free from illegal seizure, her substantive due process and equal protection rights; whether ICE deprived her of liberty without notice or an opportunity to be heard in violation of her procedural due process rights; and whether the state's immigration detainer policies and procedures illegally detain persons without probable cause and otherwise violated Ms. Morales' constitutional and common law rights.

I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND²

Ms. Ada Morales is a United States citizen who was born in Guatemala. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 1.) She became a naturalized United States citizen on September 11, 1995 ( Id. at ¶ 23) using her maiden name, Ada Amavilia Cabrera. (ECF No. 17–1 at 3.) Prior to becoming a United States citizen, she had lived in the United States since the 1980s as a lawful permanent resident. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 23.) She and her husband, a lawful permanent resident, have five children, all of whom are United States citizens. ( Id. at ¶ 24.) Ms. Morales' current encounter with immigration authorities began on Friday, May 1, 2009 when the Rhode Island State Police (“State Police”) arrested her pursuant to a warrant for state criminal charges related to alleged misrepresentations on a state public benefits application. ( Id. at ¶ 26.) While at the State Police office, a state official asked Ms. Morales where she was born and whether she was “legal.” ( Id. at ¶ 27.) Ms. Morales replied that she was born in Guatemala and was a naturalized United States citizen. ( Id.)

The State Police transported Ms. Morales to the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institution (“ACI”) either on the night of Friday, May 1, 2009, or on the morning of Saturday, May 2, 2009. ( Id.) The State held Ms. Morales at the ACI until she could appear before a state court magistrate judge on Monday, May 4, 2009. ( Id. at ¶¶ 28, 42.)

At some point after Ms. Morales' interview, an unidentified state official (named as “John Doe” in the Complaint) reported Ms. Morales' name, place of birth, and “other information” to the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) ³ office “because of her race, ethnicity, and/or national origin.” ( Id. at ¶ 29.)

ICE ran the information through the Central Index System database—a database containing information of persons having applied for immigration benefits and naturalization procedures. The search did not yield any results for the name “Ada Morales.” (ECF No. 20–3 at ¶¶ 5–6.) ICE then ran the name Ada Morales in the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) database and it revealed an alias of “Ada Madrid” with two separate social security numbers. ( Id. at ¶¶ 7–8.)

On Monday, May 4, 2009, ICE Agent Edward Donaghy prepared an immigration detainer—Notice of Action (Form I–247), informing the ACI staff that “an investigation has been initiated to determine whether [Ada Morales] is subject to removal from the United States.” (ECF No. 4–2.) Agent Donaghy faxed the immigration detainer to the ACI at 8:32 a.m. Monday morning. (ECF No. 4 ¶ 31.) The detainer informed the ACI that “federal regulation (8 C.F.R. § 287.7) requires that you detain the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours ... to provide adequate time for DHS to assume custody of the alien.” ( Id. at ¶ 33.)

Prior to issuing the detainer, no one from ICE interviewed Ms. Morales to inquire whether she was a United States citizen or to request and/or verify her immigration status. ( Id. at ¶ 37.) Neither state nor federal officials informed Ms. Morales that the detainer issued. ( Id. at ¶ 41.)

Monday afternoon, Ms. Morales appeared in Rhode Island Superior Court for an arraignment based on the state charges she faced. ( Id. at ¶ 42.) The state court withdrew the warrant and released Ms. Morales on $10,000 personal recognizance. ( Id. at ¶ 43.) The state court informed Ms. Morales of an “immigration hold,” mandating that she report to the Attorney General's office for “routine processing in this matter which will include fingerprinting.” ( Id. at ¶ 44.) State officials then returned Ms. Morales to the ACI where, relying on the federal ICE detainer issued that morning, she remained in custody. ( Id. at ¶ 46.)

At 4:20 p.m. on Monday, an ACI employee faxed ICE agent Greg Mercurio a notice stating: “Below is the name of an inmate [Ada Morales] who no longer has state charges pending. An immigration detainer is the only document holding this inmate at the Department of Corrections. Please contact the [ACI] with any information you may have pertaining to this inmate.” ( Id. at ¶ 50.) No ICE official took action that day to investigate further, cancel the detainer, or give Ms. Morales an opportunity to be heard. ( Id. at ¶ 52.)

In the meantime, Ms. Morales protested her detention and attempted to inform ACI officials that she was a United States citizen and that her husband could produce the documentation to prove it. ( Id. at ¶ 49.) While the State held her under the ICE detainer for the additional 24 hours, Ms. Morales alleges that ACI officials denied her medication, as well as harassed, taunted, and accused her of lying about her immigration status. ( Id. at ¶¶ 54–56.)

The following day, Tuesday, May 5, 2009, after having spent an additional night at the ACI solely based on the ICE detainer, ICE took Ms. Morales into custody and transported her to its Rhode Island office. ( Id. at ¶ 57.) At the ICE office, five ICE agents interviewed Ms. Morales. After multiple hours, ICE officials finally verified Ms. Morales' citizenship status and released her to her family. ( Id. at ¶ 62.)

This was not the first time that ICE inappropriately detained Ms. Morales. Five years earlier, in July of 2004, ICE detained Ms. Morales on unsubstantiated allegations that she was a deportable alien.⁴ ( Id. at ¶ 12.)

II. PROCEDURE

Ms. Morales filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) and set forth eleven counts against various federal and state law enforcement officials.

• Counts I, II, and III are Bivens⁵ claims asserting that the Federal Defendants violated her constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. ( Id. ¶¶ 101–110.)

• Counts IV, V, and VI ⁶ are § 1983 claims asserting the same constitutional violations (and includes the Fourteenth Amendment) against state defendant A.T. Wall. ( Id. at ¶¶ 111–120.)

• Counts VII and VIII are state tort claims, asserting that the state inflicted personal injury on Ms. Morales by subjecting her to false arrest and imprisonment and that state officials were negligent. ( Id. at ¶¶ 121–128.)

• Counts IX and X assert the same tort claims against the Federal Defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671. ( Id. at ¶¶ 129–138.)

• Lastly, Count XI seeks permanent injunctive relief barring ICE officials from unlawfully detaining her again. ( Id. at ¶¶ 139–141.) ⁷

Defendants have responded to Ms. Morales' Complaint with motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), alleging that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction on the FTCA claim and that Ms. Morales has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on the majority of the remaining claims. (ECF Nos. 17–21.) ICE Agent Edward Donaghy has also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that qualified immunity shields him from suit. (ECF No. 20.)

The Court held a hearing on these motions and has carefully considered the excellent memoranda submitted by the parties, as well as the law and facts relating to the motion.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEWA. Failure to State a Claim

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court will first discard bald assertions and conclusory allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Ocasio–Hernandez v. Fortuno–Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.2011). Then the court must “view the well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Gray v. Evercore Restructuring, LLC, 544 F.3d 320, 324 (1st Cir.2008); Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301, 305 (1st Cir.2008). The Court cannot dismiss a “complaint [that] satisfies Rule 8(a)(2)'s requirement of a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Ocasio–Hernandez, 640 F.3d at 11 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). In other words, a complaint satisfies what is required at the pleading stage if the court finds the complaint as a whole contains “enough detail to provide a defendant with ‘fair notice of what the (...) claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Id. at 12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). The First Circuit has cautioned against “thinking of plausibility as a standard of likely success on the merits.” Sepulveda–Villarini v. Dept. of Educ. of P.R., 628 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir.2010). “For pleading purposes, circumstantial evidence often suffices to clarify ‘a protean issue such as an actor's motive or intent.’ ”...