Armstrong v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 March 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL 12-1605CCC
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
• Parties: ADRIAN ARMSTRONG Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General, in his official capacity Defendant

ADRIAN ARMSTRONG Plaintiff
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through ERIC HOLDER,
Attorney General, in his official capacity Defendant

CIVIL 12-1605CCC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Dated: March 31, 2014

OPINION AND ORDER

On February 2, 2012 Adrian Armstrong ("plaintiff") filed an Amended Complaint against the United States of America, " by and through Eric Holder" ("defendant") pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (docket entry 6).¹ Before the Court is the United States' Fed. R. Cv. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed on April 22, 2013 (docket entry 29) and the Opposition submitted on May 30, 2013 (docket entry 35).²

A. Pleading Standards

Fed. R. Cv. P. 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to raise the defense that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a claim. Federal Courts are not at liberty to overlook limitations on their subject matter jurisdiction. Francis v. Goodman, 81 F.3d 5, 8 (1996).

Page 2

Thus, if the court determines that as a threshold matter subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, it must dismiss the case and not make any determination on the merits of the same. Menéndez v. United States, 67 F.Supp. 2d 42, 45 (D.P.R. 1999). Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving that subject matter exists. Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1209 (1996).

Under Rule12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss an action against him for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Benítez-Navarro v. González-Aponte, 660 F.Supp. 2d 185, 188 (D.P.R. 2009). "In Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Supreme Court held that to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege 'a plausible entitlement to relief'." Martínez-Díaz v. Doe, 683 F.Supp. 2d 171, 173 (D.P.R. 2010). When ruling on a motion to dismiss the "court must accept the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true and indulge all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2008). Although "Twombly does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics . . . it does require enough facts to 'nudge [plaintiffs'] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible'." Quirós v. Muñoz, 670 F.Supp. 2d 130, 131 (D.P.R. 2009). "Accordingly, in order to avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient to 'raise a right to relief above the speculative level'." Maldonado-Concepción v. Puerto Rico, 683 F.Supp. 2d 174, 175-76 (D.P.R. 2010).

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court upheld Twombly and declared two guiding principles assessment of the adequacy of a plaintiff's pleadings when evaluating whether a complaint can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. "First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

Page 3

"Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. at 1950. "Thus, any nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint, accepted as true, must be sufficient to give the claim facial plausibility." Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id., at 1949. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id., at 1950. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -but it has not 'show[n]'- 'that the pleader is entitled to relief'." Id. "Furthermore, such inferences must be at least as plausible as any 'obvious alternative explanation'." Martínez-Díaz v. Doe, 683 F.Supp. 2d at 174 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950-51). At the pleading stage a plaintiff must allege "sufficient facts to 'provide fair notice to defendant and state a facially plausible legal claim.'" García Catalán v. United States of America, 734 F.3d 100 (2013), quoting from Ocasio Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).

B. Factual Allegations

1. On May 25, 2004 a Criminal Complaint, supported by a Sworn Affidavit, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico charging plaintiff Adrian Armstrong for his involvement in illegal drug distribution activity, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. (CR. No. 04-250). That same day, a warrant for plaintiff's arrest was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

2. On June 19, 2004, based on the Criminal Complaint and related Arrest Warrant, plaintiff was arrested in Montego Bay, Jamaica.

3. On June 23, 2004 a grand jury, sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, returned an indictment charging him with illegal drug distribution

Page 4

activity, a violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 952(a) and 963, along with related money laundering activity, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2.

4. During the summer of 2006, plaintiff was extradited to the United States of America, directly to the District of Puerto Rico. On August 10, 2006, plaintiff made his initial appearance before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the District of Puerto Rico. On August 15, 2006, plaintiff was arraigned and ordered to be detained pending resolution of the proceedings.

5. On May 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Suppress Evidence where he sought the suppression of certain audio recordings allegedly containing conversations that took place between himself and a cooperating individual asserting that the audio recordings had been tampered with by the cooperating individual or by the government.

6. Following two hearings, the U.S. Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation recommending suppression of a recorded conversation ("N-17") because it "contains several anomalies which make it unreliable." (Cr. No. 04-250, docket entry 257 p. 13). The Report and Recommendation also recommended the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.

7. On May 7, 2009, the District Court entered an Order adopting the U.S. Magistrate's Report which stated: "Specifically, tape recording N-17 shall be suppressed. However, Defendant's request for dismissal of the indictment is denied." (Cr. No. 04-250, docket entry 288 p. 15).

8. In or about September, 2009, plaintiff pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation.

9. Pursuant to Rule 48(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment against plaintiff. On September 23, 2009, the District Court granted the Government's motion and the criminal proceedings against plaintiff in Criminal Case No. 04-205 were dismissed.

Page 5

10. On May 29, 2010, plaintiff presented an administrative claim to the U.S. Department of Justice for wrongful prosecution, wrongful arrest and wrongful imprisonment, which asserted:

Mr. Armstrong was wrongfully indicted, arrested and prosecuted in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico. There was no probable cause to indict him and there was no evidence to support any criminal conduct either. Therefore, his arrest and imprisonment was unlawful and his prosecution was malicious. That prosecution is identified under U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico

...