Hernandez v. United States
Decision Date | 24 April 2015 |
Docket Number | 12–50217,Nos. 11–50792,12–50301,s. 11–50792 |
Citation | 785 F.3d 117 |
Parties | Jesus C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor–in–Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; Maria Guadalupe Guereca Bentacour, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor–in–Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; United States Border Patrol ; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency; United States Department of Justice, Defendants–Appellees. Jesus C. Hernandez, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor–in–Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; Maria Guadalupe Guereca Bentacour, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor–in–Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Jesus Mesa, Jr., Defendant–Appellee. Jesus C. Hernandez, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor–in–Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; Maria Guadalupe Guereca Bentacour, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor–in–Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Ramiro Cordero; Victor M. Manjarrez, Jr., Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq., Rudy O. Gonzales, Jr., Marion M. Reilly, Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, L.L.P., Cristobal Miguel Galindo, Attorney, Houston, TX, Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. (argued), Hilliard & Shadowen, L.L.C., Mechanicsburg, PA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Henry Charles Whitaker (argued), Helen Louise Gilbert, Esq., Daniel Joseph Lenerz, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Harold Edwin Brown, Jr., Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, Zachary Carl Richter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Austin, TX, for United States.
Randolph J. Ortega (argued), Louis Elias Lopez, Jr., for Jesus Mesa, Jr.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.*
We rehear this matter en banc, see Hernandez v. United States, 771 F.3d 818 (5th Cir.2014) (per curiam) ( ), to resolve whether, under facts unique to this or any other circuit, the individual defendants in these consolidated appeals are entitled to qualified immunity. Unanimously concluding that the plaintiffs fail to allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the complained-of incident, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.
The facts and course of proceedings are accurately set forth in the panel majority opinion of Judge Prado, Hernandez v. United States, 757 F.3d 249, 255–57 (5th Cir.2014). We conclude that the panel opinion rightly affirms the dismissal of Hernandez's claims against the United States, id. at 257–59, and against Agent Mesa's supervisors, id. at 280, and we therefore REINSTATE Parts I, II, and VI of that opinion. We additionally hold that pursuant to United States v. Verdugo–Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hernandez, a Mexican citizen who had no “significant voluntary connection” to the United States, id. at 271, and who was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot, cannot assert a claim under the Fourth Amendment.
The remaining issue for the en banc court is properly described as whether “the Fifth Amendment ... protect[s] a non-citizen with no connections to the United States who suffered an injury in Mexico where the United States has no formal control or de facto sovereignty.” Id. at 281–82 (DeMoss, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). To underscore the seriousness of the tragic incident under review, we elaborate on that description only to note that the injury was the death of a teenaged Mexican national from a gunshot fired by a Border Patrol agent standing on U.S. soil.
To decide the assertion of qualified immunity made by defendant Agent Mesa, regarding the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim, the court avails itself of the latitude afforded by Pearson v. Callahan: “The judges of the ... courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (overruling Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) ).
The prongs referred to are familiar: Id. at 232, 129 S.Ct. 808. “Qualified immunity is applicable unless [both prongs are satisfied].” Id.
The panel opinion correctly describes the substantive-due-process claim as “that Agent Mesa showed callous disregard for Hernandez's Fifth Amendment rights by using excessive, deadly force when Hernandez was unarmed and presented no threat.” Hernandez, 757 F.3d at 267. The question is whether, under the unique facts and circumstances presented here, that right was “clearly established.”
The Supreme Court has carefully admonished that we are “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2084, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). To the contrary, a right is clearly established only where “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199, 125 S.Ct. 596, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (per curiam) (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question here is whether the general prohibition of excessive force applies where the person injured by a U.S. official standing on U.S. soil is an alien who had no significant voluntary connection to, and was not in, the United States when the incident occurred. No case law in 2010, when this episode occurred, reasonably warned Agent Mesa that his conduct violated the Fifth Amendment.
Although the en banc court is somewhat divided on the question of whether Agent Mesa's conduct violated the Fifth Amendment, the court, with the benefit of further consideration and en banc supplemental briefing and oral argument, is unanimous in concluding that any properly asserted right was not clearly established to the extent the law requires. The strongest authority for the plaintiffs may be Boumediene v. Bush, which addressed whether the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution applied to aliens detained outside the United States at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 553 U.S. 723, 732–33, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008). Although the Court drew on cases from contexts other than habeas corpus, see id. at 755–64, 128 S.Ct. 2229 ( ), it expressly limited its holding to the facts before it, see id. at 795, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (). Accordingly, nothing in that opinion presages, with the directness that the “clearly established” standard requires, whether the Court would extend the territorial reach of a different constitutional provision—the Fifth Amendment—and would do so where the injury occurs not on land long controlled by the United States, but on soil that is indisputably foreign and beyond the United States' territorial sovereignty. By deciding this case on a ground on which the court is in consensus, we bypass that issue by giving allegiance to “the general rule of constitutional avoidance.” Callahan, 555 U.S. at 241, 129 S.Ct. 808.
“There are cases in which it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established but far from obvious whether in fact there is such a right.”Id. at 237, 129 S.Ct. 808. Reasonable minds can differ on whether Boumediene may someday be explicitly extended as the plaintiffs urge. That is the chore of the first prong of the qualified-immunity test, which we do not address.
The alleged right at issue was not clearly established, under these facts, in 2010.
The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge, joined by SMITH, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges, concurring:
The court has unfortunately taken the path of least resistance. We hold unanimously that Agent Mesa has qualified immunity from this suit for a Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation because he did not violate any clearly established rights flowing from that Amendment. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). This compromise simply delays the day of reckoning until another appellate panel revisits non-citizen tort claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hernandez v. Mesa
... 140 S.Ct. 735 206 L.Ed.2d 29 Jesus C. HERNANDEZ, et al., Petitioners v. Jesus MESA, Jr. No. 17-1678 Supreme Court of the United States. Argued November 12, 2019 Decided February 25, 2020 Randolph J. Ortega, Gabriel Perez, Ortega McGlashan Hicks & Perez, Louis Elias Lopez, Jr., ......
-
C.D.A. v. United States
...... waiver of immunity. See, e.g. , Quintero. Perez , 8 F.4th at 1101; D.J.C.V. , 605 F.Supp. at 609; Andrade v. United States , No. 15-CV-103,. 2017 WL 2985637, at *13-16 (S.D. Tex. July 12, 2017); see. also Hernandez v. United States , 785 F.3d 117, 122 (5th. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Jones, J., concurring) (referring to. notion that “the United States' sovereign immunity. may be ineffective in American courts against [ jus. cogens ] claims” as “troubling”),. vacated , 137 ......
-
Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha
...... and as personal representative of the Estate of Shingo Alexander Douglass; Dora Hernandez, Individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Noe Hernandez; Lan Huynh, ... Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 20-30382, 20-30379 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit August 16, 2022 . . . ......
-
Ali v. Trump
... 959 F.3d 364 Abdul Razak ALI, Detainee, Appellant v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Appellees No. 18-5297 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. ...2019) (Henderson and Rao, JJ. dissenting from denial of en banc review); see also Hernandez v. United States , 785 F.3d 117, 125-28 (5th Cir. 2015) (Jones, J. concurring). 1 1. Johnson v. ......
-
Legal black holes at the U.S.-Mexico border: an evaluation of cross-border harms and the shortcomings of international and domestic law in providing remedies
...Greece, Bulgaria, and Austria). 16. Brief for Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 2015), 2015 WL 5770412 [hereinafter Hernandez Amicus]. 330 GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 36:325 1. Visible Cross-Border Harm......
-
Constitutional Law - Shoot First, Ask No Questions Later: The Supreme Court Chooses Not to Extend Bivens to Victims of Cross-Border Shootings - Hernandez v. Mesa.
...considered at hearing on United States' motion to dismiss), aff d, 757 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2014), adhered to in part on reh 'g en banc, 785 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 2015), vacated and remanded per curiam sub nom. Hernandez v Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 2003 (2017). The Mexican police ultimately pronounced He......
-
Due Process in Removal Proceedings After Thuraissigiam.
...Hernandez v. United States, 757 F.3d 249, 281 (5th Cir. 2014) (DeMoss, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), aff'd en banc, 785 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 2015), vacated, 137 S. Ct. (222.) As discussed in Part I.C above, this Note does not contest the Supreme Court's approval of a ties-ba......
-
INJUSTICE AT THE BORDER: APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ABROAD THROUGH THE CONFLICT OF LAWS.
...States, 757 F.3d 249, 267-72 (5th Cir. 2014). (52) See Id. (53) See Id. at 272. (54) See Id. at 267. (55) Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117, 120-21 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam) ("[T]he court... is unanimous in concluding that any properly asserted right was not clearly esta......