Butt v. Fransen
Decision Date | 14 August 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-18-1176 |
Parties | BABAR JAVED BUTT, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK FRANSEN, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner at the time of filing,1 filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He names as defendants four agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") - Patrick Fransen, Renee Cline, Robert Schumaker, and Brian Rasmussen - and two agents of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") - Paul Skinner and John Doe, Skinner's unnamed supervisor. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages along with reinstatement of his immigration bond and issuance of a specialized visa.
Based on consideration of the complaint, court records, and the applicable law, the Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for the reasons that follow.
On January 17, 2017, plaintiff pleaded guilty to six counts of federal mail fraud in United States v. Butt, C.A. No. H-16-452 (S.D. Tex.). The district court imposed a 21-month sentence, three years' supervised release, and monetary restitution. Removal proceedings in immigration court, initiated prior to his arrest, remained pending against plaintiff throughout his criminal prosecution.
During his plea hearing in the criminal case, plaintiff stated on the record that the following was a true statement of the facts underlying his federal offenses:
Butt, Docket Entry No. 106, pp. 9-11.
Plaintiff acknowledged in his written plea agreement that he understood the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, and that "by pleading guilty he may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and denied admission to the United States in the future." Id., Docket Entry No. 18, p. 2. He further agreed to pay restitution in an amount not less than $287,679.00. Id., p. 9. Plaintiff expressly waived the right to challenge, by direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding, the order of restitution issued by the Court. Id., p. 10.
Plaintiff also stipulated to forfeiture of certain property. Id. He agreed that the factual basis for his guilty plea supported forfeiture of at least $287,679.00, and that a personal money judgment would be entered against him in that amount. Id. He expressly waived theright to challenge the forfeiture in any manner, including by direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding. Id., p. 11. He agreed that the written plea agreement constituted the entirety of their agreement, that no other promises or representations had been made by the Government, and that no threats had been made against him. Id., pp. 11-12.
Plaintiff filed a sentencing memorandum with the district court prior to the sentencing hearing. Butt, Docket Entry No. 30 (sealed).2 In the memorandum, plaintiff "request[ed] that the Court grant a variance from the sentencing guideline range because of his cooperation with the Government and supplying information in the investigation and potential prosecution of others," which he stated "expos[ed] him and his family to threats of violence." Id., p. 1. Plaintiff argued that the district court had the authority to reduce his sentence if it found that he had provided cooperation to the Government in the investigation of others. Id. In short, plaintiff argued that the court could "recognize [his] cooperation and reward him for that assistance." Id.
Significantly, for purposes of the instant lawsuit, plaintiff set forth the following summarization of pre-arrest events in his sentencing memorandum:
Butt, Docket Entry No. 30, pp. 3-4 (emphasis added) (sealed).
Plaintiff reported that, in May 2016, "people were believing that he was working for the FBI, and that such beliefs within the community were damaging his credibility." Id., p. 26 (emphasis added). He reported instances of his sister and mother being followed and confronted in Pakistan by individuals who accused plaintiff of "cooperating" and demanding to know about his sentencing. Id., pp. 26-27. Absent from the memorandum was anymention of plaintiff himself being threatened or harassed by third parties. Indeed, the only physical incident reported by plaintiff was that "someone had frisked him thinking he was a confidential informant." Id., p. 26.
It is clear from plaintiff's sentencing memorandum in his criminal case that he voluntarily agreed to cooperate with the federal agents, and that he did so as a matter of self-interest - he believed he could receive valuable benefits through his cooperation and efforts. He made a decision to cooperate with the defendants, and continued his cooperation despite being frightened by certain actions of the agents. This is further supported by plaintiff's own words during allocution at his sentencing hearing:
Id., p. 18 (original capitalization).
To continue reading
Request your trial