Uroza v. Salt Lake Cnty.

ENRIQUE UROZA, Plaintiff,

v.SALT LAKE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:11CV713DAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

DATED: February 21, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION ANDORDER

Judge Dale A. Kimball

This matter is before the court on the United States of America, Janet Napolitano, John Morton, Steven Branch, and Marshall Mathis's ("Federal Defendants") Motion to Dismiss. The court held a hearing on the motion on November 15, 2012. At the hearing, Plaintiff was represented by John Mejia, Kent Morgan, and Leah Farrell, the Federal Defendants were represented by Jessica Segall, and the County Defendants were represented by David Wayment. The court took the matter under advisement. The court has considered carefully the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties, as well as the law and facts relating to the motion. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.

BACKGROUND

Because the court must accept all well-pleaded facts on a motion to dismiss, the following facts are taken from Uroza's Second Amended Complaint. On June 13, 2012, Uroza, a 22-year old college student, appeared in Utah State Court to face criminal allegations. The court set bail and remanded Uroza to Salt Lake County Metro Jail for processing. Uroza was bookedinto custody and posted bail ten minutes later. When Uroza posted bail, there was no other lawful process that had been issued against Uroza that would have caused continued detention. Nevertheless, pursuant to County policy, the County Defendants continued to hold Uroza.

The following day, June 14, 2011, an Immigration Customs Enforcement ("ICE") agent interviewed Uroza at the SLC Metro Jail and then issued a hold request against Uroza. This hold request was on a Form I-247, which requested SLC Metro Jail to "[m]aintain custody of the subject for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beyond the time when the subject would have otherwise been released from your custody to allow DHS to take custody of the subject." The Form I-247 requested that SLC Metro Jail continue to detain Uroza because ICE has "initiated an investigation to determine whether this person is subject to removal from the United States."

After receiving ICE's "hold request," the County Defendants continued to detain Uroza. By its own terms, ICE's hold request expired on June 16, 2011, forty-eight hours after it was lodged. Uroza, however, was not released despite having already posted bail. Uroza was detained another thirty-six days. Uroza moved the state court presiding over his criminal case to order the County Defendants to release him. On July 21, 2011, five weeks after Uroza had posted bail, the State Court heard Uroza's motion and ordered him to be released from custody immediately.

Despite the State Court's ruling, the County Defendants did not release Uroza. Defendant James Winder publicly stated that Salt Lake County would "continue to hold the inmate . . . until a federal judge orders his release or [ICE] removes the detainer it has placed on him." Winder advised the press that he believed he was complying with ICE policy and practice by continuingto hold Uroza after the hold request expired.

On July 22, 2011, thirty-nine days after he posted bail, the County released Uroza from custody and turned him over to Defendant Mathis, an ICE agent. Uroza asserts that he was turned over to ICE even though the state court judge ordered that the County should not turn him over to ICE.

Uroza alleges that it is the policy and practice of requesting local law enforcement agencies, like the County Defendants, to imprison individuals so that ICE can investigate the individual's immigration status. Form I-247 allows ICE agents to request local law enforcement agents to imprison people without stating probable cause for such detention: the one stated ground for a "hold request" on Form I-247 is that ICE is investigating whether an individual may be removed from the United States. Defendants Napolitano, Morton, and Branch approved the use of Form I-247.

Uroza also alleges that on June 16, 2011, when his Form I-247 expired, nobody from ICE went to SLC Metro Jail to acquire custody of him. Uroza claims that the Federal Defendants should have known that the County Defendants routinely kept individuals like Uroza in custody even if the ICE "hold request" had expired. An ICE agent did not come and place Uroza in ICE custody until July 22, 2011, thirty-six days later. On that day, Uroza was transported to an ICE detention facility in Spanish Fork, Utah. Uroza was held at the detention facility until July 24, 2011, without a hearing or an opportunity to post bail.

On July 25, 2011, ICE agents transported Uroza to Salt Lake City for a hearing before ICE Agent Jesus Padilla. At the hearing, Agent Padilla deemed Uroza eligible for bail, which was set and later lowered to $2,500. Uroza and his family raised the money and posted bail onJuly 28, 2011. Uroza is no longer in custody.

Uroza filed this case regarding the legality of Uroza's detention at the Salt Lake County Metro Jail, which he claims was unconstitutionally prolonged due to ICE's Form I-247.

DISCUSSION

Uroza asserts five causes of action against the Federal Defendants: a declaratory judgment claim against the individually named Federal Defendants; a Bivens claim against each individually named Federal Defendant for violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights; a conspiracy claim against Defendants Branch and Mathis; and false imprisonment and negligence claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). The Federal Defendants move to dismiss all the causes of action Uroza asserts against them in the Second Amended Complaint. The Federal Defendants raise the following issues in their Motion to Dismiss: (1) Uroza's declaratory judgment claim regarding the constitutionality of the Form I-247 is barred by sovereign immunity and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2) Uroza's Bivens claims against the individual federal defendants fails to state a claim and is barred by qualified immunity; (3) Uroza's conspiracy claim against Defendants Branch and Mathis under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6); (4) Uroza's false imprisonment under the FTCA fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6); (5) Uroza's negligence claim is barred by the discretionary function exception and fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6).

1. Fifth Claim for Relief

Uroza's fifth claim for relief seeks declaratory judgment that it violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution for the Federal Defendants to use Form I-247 to cause local law enforcement agents to detain people for 48 hours beyond the time they would otherwise be eligible for release for the sole reason that ICE is investigating whether the person should be removed from the United States. The Federal Defendants argue that Uroza's declaratory judgment claim is barred by sovereign immunity and fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

A. Sovereign Immunity

The Federal Defendants argue that sovereign immunity bars Uroza's declaratory judgment claims because Uroza's Second Amended Complaint fails to assert a valid waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity from suit. Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554 (1988). Generally, a plaintiff cannot pursue suit against the federal government absent a congressional waiver of immunity. Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 280 (1983). General jurisdiction statutes, such as 28 U.S.C. § 1331, do not waive the government's sovereign immunity, nor does the declaratory judgment statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. See Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1443-44 (10th Cir. 1990); New Mexico v. Regan, 745 F.2d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir. 1984).

Uroza claims that this issue is governed by Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1225 (10th Cir. 2002), in which the court recognized two judicially created exceptions to the general bar against suits seeking relief from the federal government. Id. In Wyoming, the Tenth Circuit explained: "A court may regard a government officer's conduct as so 'illegal' as to permit a suit for specific relief against the officer as an individual if (1) the conduct is not within the officer's statutory powers or, (2) those powers, or their exercise in the particular case, are unconstitutional. Absent these exceptions, sovereign immunity would unjustifiably protectGovernment in the exercise of powers it does not possess." Id. Based on these elements, Uroza claims that (1) each Federal Defendant engaged in conduct beyond his or her statutory powers in using or approving of the use of the Form I-247, and (2) even if his or her conduct had been within his or her statutory grant of power, the statutory power itself is unconstitutional or its exercise in this case was unconstitutional.

(1) Conduct Not Within Statutory Powers

Uroza argues that the Federal Defendants do not have the statutory power to arrest someone whenever they wish to investigate whether that person is removable for an immigration offense. The issuance of an immigration detainer is authorized by statute and regulation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1357; 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. In fact, the regulations allow "any authorized immigration officer" to "issue a Form I-247." 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a). 8 C.F.R. Section 287.7(a) states that "[a]ny authorized immigration officer may at any time issue a Form I-247, Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action, to any other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. A detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the...