Alvarado v. United States

• Decision Date: 25 May 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-5028
• Parties: SUNY RODRIGUEZ ALVARADO, and A.S.R., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

SUNY RODRIGUEZ ALVARADO, and A.S.R., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 16-5028

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

May 25, 2017

FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court by way of the United States' (the "Government") motion to transfer the matter to either the Southern or Western District of Texas. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiffs Suny Yaneth Rodriguez Alvarado ("Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado") and her child, A.S.R. (together, "Plaintiffs"), oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 21. For the reasons set forth below, the Government's motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

In this Federal Tort Claims Act case, Plaintiffs seek damages for injuries sustained at the hands of federal Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") and Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officers when they entered the United States to seek asylum.

Plaintiff Suny Rodriguez Alvarado and her son, A.S.R., are citizens of Honduras. Compl. ¶ 7. Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado was born in Honduras in 1976, and resided in the United States lawfully for a number of years from 1998 to 2006. Id. ¶¶ 36-39. In 2004, Honduran police officers killed Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado's mother, an outspoken police critic, along with her stepfather. Id. ¶ 38. Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado returned to Honduras in 2006 to investigate their deaths. Id. ¶ 39. She was met with intimidation, harassment, and extortion by the Honduras police, which culminated in a physical attack outside her home in September 2014. Id. ¶¶ 41-42.

In November 2014, Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado, A.S.R., and A.S.R.'s father, Jose Rafael Sanchez Villatoro ("Mr. Sanchez") fled Honduras for the United States. Id. ¶ 45. While en route, Mexican authorities arrested them and returned them to Honduras. Id. Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado, Mr. Sanchez, and A.S.R. made a second attempt to flee Honduras, arriving in Texas after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on January 16, 2015. Id. ¶ 46. CBP apprehended the Rodriguez Alvarado-Sanchez family, and detained them at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas ("Dilley") from January 19, 2015 until May 14, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 83-84.

Plaintiffs allege that they were mistreated by CBP and ICE officers through the duration of their time in custody in violation of federal regulations. Specifically, they allege that Government officials: (1) placed Plaintiffs in inhumane, cold, and crowded conditions in violation of CBP's own minimum standards for operation, id. ¶¶ 59-64; (2) attempted to coerce Plaintiffs to agree to removal by making constant threats of deportation, id. ¶¶ 70, 74, 87-90; (3) attempted to place A.S.R. in a shelter for unaccompanied minors, id. ¶¶ 113-27; (4) regularly disrupted Plaintiffs' sleep by keeping the lights on, id. ¶¶ 128-32; (5) refused to share information about Mr. Sanchez with Plaintiffs, id. ¶¶ 140-43; and (6) inhibited Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado's access to counsel, id. ¶¶ 144-48.

Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado sought withholding of removal, which was granted on May 14, 2015, by Immigration Judge Lourdes Rodriguez De Jongh. Id. ¶ 155. Plaintiffs were released from Dilley that day, and joined their relatives in New Jersey. Id. ¶ 156. On October 1, 2015, Mr. Sanchez was granted protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture inPearsall Immigration Court. Id. ¶ 158. Three months after that, on January 19, 2016, A.S.R. was granted asylum in Newark Immigration Court by Immigration Judge Leo Fink. Id. ¶ 159.

Plaintiffs filed administrative claims pursuant to the FTCA for their alleged mistreatment at the hands of CBP and ICE officers acting under the supervision of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). Id. ¶ 162. DHS denied the claims on February 25, 2016. Id. ¶ 163. Plaintiffs subsequently initiated the instant action on August 17, 2016. Plaintiffs assert the following five causes of action pursuant to the FTCA: (1) abuse of process; (2) false imprisonment; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent supervision; and (5) negligence. Id. ¶¶ 165-210. Defendants now seek dismissal for improper venue, or—in the alternative—transfer of venue.

II. Discussion

A. Whether Venue is Proper in New Jersey

The Government first contends that venue is improperly laid in New Jersey as to Plaintiff Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado because, as an alien, she cannot establish residency in the forum.¹ The Court disagrees.

1. Residence

In a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the moving party bears the burden of proving that venue is improper. See Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 724-25 (3d Cir. 1982). FTCA actions against the United States "may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) (emphasis added).The parties dispute the meaning of "resides." As Section 1402 does not define residence, the Court looks to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which does. Section 1391's provision on residency states that for venue purposes, "a natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1).²

Plaintiffs contend that the plain reading of this provision allows any non-citizen to establish venue in a forum where he or she is domiciled. Pls.' Opp'n at 5-6. Defendants contend that Section 1391(c)(1) should be narrowly read only to permit non-citizens who are Legal Permanent Residents ("LPR") to establish residency where he or she is domiciled. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.

The plain text of 1391(c)(1) authorizes all non-citizens—regardless of LPR status—to establish residency where they are domiciled. The clause provides "a natural person . . . shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled." The ordinary meaning of "natural person" is an individual. See FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397, 403 (2011) ("When a statute does not define a term, we typically give the phrase its ordinary meaning.") (citations omitted); Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449, 454 (2012) (recognizing that "this Court routinely uses 'individual' to denote a natural person"). The statute here does not limit the term "natural persons" in any way, and thus includes all natural persons. "When Congress intend[s] to exclude . . . it [says] so." Flores v. United States, 108 F. Supp. 3d 126, 130 (E.D.N.Y.2015) (holding that the plain meaning of Section 1391(c)(1) indicates that "[a]lienage is not a reason stated in the statute as a basis for finding persons outside its reach").

The Government argues that the clause "including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States," limits the scope of Section 1391(c)(1) to LPRs alone. The Government contends that this clause would be superfluous had Congress meant the term "natural persons" to include all individuals regardless of LPR status. But a more plausible reading—the one that is plain on its face—is that LPRs are merely an illustrative example of "natural persons." "[T]he term 'including is not one of all-embracing definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle." Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 100 (1941) (citing Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 313 U.S. 177, 189 (1941)). Here, the general principle is that "natural persons" can establish residency where they are domiciled, and individuals with LPR status are merely an illustrative example of natural persons.

Where a statute is unambiguous on its face, no further inquiry is necessary. Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726 F.3d 323, 327 (2d Cir. 2013). But even if Section 1391(c)(1) was ambiguous, Plaintiffs' reading of the text is supported by its legislative history. Congress adopted the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 (the "Act") to resolve a circuit split over whether "residence" has the same meaning as "domicile" as used in Section 1391. H.R. Rep. 112-10, at 20-21 (Feb. 11, 2011) (citing 15 WRIGHT & MILLER, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters at 33-37 (2d. ed. 1986)). Before 2011, a minority of circuits permitted individuals to establish residence in multiple locations, while others limited residence to where an individual is domiciled. Id. Under either rule, individuals who were not domiciled in the United States were unable to mount a venue defense in actions brought against them. As such,all non-citizens were considered non-domiciliaries, and so were unable to establish venue under 1391. See Arevelo-Franco v. I.N.S., 889 F.2d 589, 590 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting "federal courts have interpreted [Section 1391] to deny venue to aliens, holding that for purposes of venue, aliens are not residents of any district despite where they live"); Williams v. United States, 704 F.2d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 1983) ("An alien, for purposes of establishing venue, is presumed by law not to reside in any judicial district of the United States . . . ."); Blacher v. Ridge, 436 F. Supp. 2d 602, 608 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("Although [plaintiff] resides in this District, she is an alien and has no residence for venue purposes.").

The Act clarified the venue statute by explicitly adopting the majority rule in its new provisions on residency. The House Judiciary Committee Report (the "Report") states, "1391(c)(1) would provide that, for venue purposes, a natural person would be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled, thereby resolving the division of authority regarding the residence of parties by adopting the majority rule." Id. at 21. While Congress acknowledged that the modification would "permit permanent resident aliens domiciled in the United States to raise a venue defense," Id. at 23, it does not distinguish between the application of the statute to LPRs and to non-citizens without LPR...