Habeeb v. Castloo
| Citation | 434 F.Supp.2d 899 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 05-24 GF SEH.,CV 05-24 GF SEH. |
| Parties | Abdul Ameer Yousef HABEEB, Plaintiff, v. Thomas CASTLOO, Darryl Essing, Tom Hardy, Robert L. Finley, and Theodore V. Denning, in their individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Andrew Huff, ACLU of Montana, Helena, MT, Jesse A. Wing, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, WA, Robin I. Goldfaden, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff.
George F. Darragh, Jr., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Defendants.
Plaintiff, Abdul Ameer Yousef Habeeb (Habeeb), brought this action, alleging Defendants, Thomas Castloo (Castloo), Darryl Essing (Essing), Tom Hardy (Hardy), Robert L. Finley (Finley), and Theodore V. Denning (Denning), in their individual capacities, violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1391, and 2201.
Defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. All parties have submitted matters outside the pleadings in support and in opposition to the motions. Material facts relevant to the qualified immunity issue are not in dispute.1 Resolution of the motion as one for summary judgment is in order.2
The standard for assessment of a motion for summary judgment is not disputed. Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates the absence of genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir.2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The movant bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Fairbank, 212 F.3d at 531. Once that burden is met, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts rising to the level of genuine issues and, in doing so, may not rely on mere allegations contained in the pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Fairbank, 212 F.3d at 531; Farm Credit Bank of Spokane v. Parsons, 758 F.Supp. 1368, 1372 (D.Mont.1990). The material facts are summarized below.3
Habeeb, an alien originally from Iraq, was admitted to the United States as a refugee on July 8, 2002. On April 1, 2003, he was en-route by train to Washington, D.C. from his home in Washington state. The train made a scheduled stop in Havre, Montana. Habeeb got off the train and entered the station. Before reboarding the train, Habeeb was approached by Castloo, an agent of the Customs and Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security (CBP), and was asked by Castloo where he was from. Habeeb apprised Castloo he was from Iraq. Castloo asked him for his immigration papers. Habeeb produced a copy of an 1-94 form.
Shortly thereafter, Essing, also an agent of the CBP, approached Habeeb and Castloo. Upon learning Habeeb was an alien from Iraq, Essing asked Habeeb whether he had gone through "special registration." Habeeb indicated he had not. At that point, Castloo and Essing took Habeeb into custody. His bags were removed from the train. He was detained overnight and questioned further about his alien status by Castloo, Essing, and other federal agents.
On April 2, 2003, Essing issued a Notice to Appear, charging that Habeeb ' (First Amended Compl. at ¶ 3.10 (Mar. 31, 2005)(Complaint).) Habeeb was placed in removal proceedings and was held for three nights in the Hill County, Montana, jail.
Habeeb was transported by plane to Seattle, Washington, on April 3, 2003, where he was held for four nights in a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) detention facility. He was released from custody on April 9, 2003. Removal proceedings were formally terminated on May 16, 2003.
Habeeb asserts three claims against Defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).4 First, he alleges that Defendants denied him the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Second, he contends Defendants denied him the right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Third, he asserts Defendants denied him the right to equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Qualified immunity is "an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation . " Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). A ruling on qualified immunity "should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
Whether an official claiming qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the assessed action in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). A defendant's subjective intent is irrelevant to the qualified immunity defense. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588-89, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998).
The threshold question is: "[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right?" Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. This Court must determine "the existence or nonexistence of a constitutional right as the first inquiry." Id. In determining that issue, it may be "necessary to set forth principles which will become the basis for a holding that a right is clearly established." Id. If Defendants' actions would have violated no constitutional right, qualified immunity should be granted. Id.
Habeeb argues that when Castloo approached him and asked where he was from, and was later joined by Essing, the officers acted without reasonable suspicion that Habeeb was in violation of an immigration law and thus in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.5 The officers' actions were, in fact, lawful. Habeeb has failed to show a Fourth Amendment constitutional right violation. Castloo and Essing are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Habeeb's Fourth Amendment claims.
An alien, regardless of whether his or her presence in this country is temporary or lawful, is entitled to certain constitutional protections. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. In appropriate circumstances, its protections apply to aliens even if the alien's presence is unlawful. See Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 38 F.3d 488 (9th Cir.1994).
An encounter between an officer and an individual that communicates to a reasonable person that the person is at liberty to ignore the officer's conduct and go about his business, is not a "seizure." The Fourth Amendment is not implicated. See Orhorhaghe, 38 F.3d at 494; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). "Law enforcement agents have the `liberty (again, possessed by every citizen) to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away.'" Orhorhaghe, 38 F.3d at 494 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 32-33, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889).
Factors to be considered in determining whether a seizure has occurred include: (1) the number of officers and their threatening presence; (2) whether the officers were carrying weapons; (3) the setting of the encounter; and (4) the manner in which the officers acted. Orhorhaghe, 38 F.3d at 494-96. All those factors demonstrate that Habeeb was not seized when the officers approached and questioned him at the station.
The events took place in an open, public train station. Habeeb has not asserted he was cornered or otherwise restrained. He does not say he was threatened or coerced. He asserts no more than that Castloo and Essing "approached" him and "demanded" to see his immigration papers. There are no allegations that Habeeb was even aware of the presence of weapons. He has not alleged that either officer told him he was not free to leave. There is no evidence that either impeded his ability to walk away. This record shows no more than that Castloo and Essing performed routine law enforcement work by exercising their liberty to address questions to other persons.
Even if it be assumed, which the Court has expressly declined to find, that Castloo and Essing did seize Habeeb, the seizure was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Congress has granted border protection officers express, unique authority to act within Fourth Amendment constraints. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2000), Border Patrol officials have the power, without warrant,
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States; [and]
. . . . .
(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle ....
A "reasonable distance" is that territory within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2). The authority to interrogate contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) is constitutional. Mienke v. U.S., 452 F.2d 1076, 1077 (9th...
To continue reading
Request your trial