Hernandez v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 18-1103-cv,August Term 2018 |
| Citation | 939 F.3d 191 |
| Parties | Luis HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and City of New York, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jeffrey A. Rothman, Law Office of Jeffrey A. Rothman, New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Brandon D. Waterman, Assistant United States Attorney (Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee United States of America.
Eric Lee, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Richard Dearing, Executive Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief), for Georgia M. Pestana, Acting Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee City of New York.
Omar C. Jadwat, Cody H. Wofsy, and Spencer E. Amdur, American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco, California and New York, New York; Christopher Dunn, Antony Gemmell, Amy Belsher, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York; Mark Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, for Amici Curae The American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, and National Immigrant Justice Center.
Before: Wesley and Chin, Circuit Judges, and Kaplan, District Judge.†
On September 27, 2013, plaintiff-appellant Luis Hernandez was arrested in Manhattan and charged with public lewdness, a misdemeanor. The same day, while he was being processed through the New York City Criminal Court system, the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") lodged an immigration detainer against him, asserting that he was the subject of an order of removal. Hernandez, however, was born in Brooklyn, and as a U.S. citizen he could not have been the subject of a removal order. When DHS realized its error, it withdrew the detainer. In the meantime, Hernandez had been in custody for four days; he was not released until the detainer was withdrawn.
Hernandez brought this action below against defendants-appellants United States (the "Government") and the City of New York (the "City"), as well as certain individual federal officers, seeking damages for his wrongful detention. Hernandez alleges that the Government was liable under the Federal Torts Claims Act (the "FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 et seq ., for (1) false arrest and false imprisonment; (2) abuse of process; (3) violation of his due process rights under the New York Constitution; and (4) negligence. Hernandez also alleges that the City was liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
The Government and the City moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions and denied Hernandez leave to file a further amended complaint. Hernandez appeals.1
We AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
For purposes of this appeal, we take as true the facts set forth in the second amended complaint (the "Complaint"). See Garcia v. Does , 779 F.3d 84, 88 (2d Cir. 2015).
Hernandez is a U.S. citizen who was born in Brooklyn on July 28, 1974. On Friday, September 27, 2013, he was arrested and charged with public lewdness, a misdemeanor. The same day, as he was being processed through the New York City Criminal Court system, DHS Officer Outlaw lodged an "Immigration Detainer - Notice of Action" with the City against Hernandez. J. App'x at 12.2 The detainer identified the "alien" as "Hernandez-Martinez, Luis Enrique," with a date of birth of July 28, 1974, and with a nationality of "Honduras." Id. at 32; see id. at 30-31. The detainer requested that the New York City Department of Corrections ("DOC") "[m]aintain custody of [Hernandez] for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beyond the time when [Hernandez] would have otherwise been released from [DOC] custody to allow DHS to take custody of [Hernandez]." J. App'x at 32.
At Hernandez's arraignment, the Assistant District Attorney (the "ADA") initially recommended three days of community service on a plea to the charge. The judge, however, responded: J. App'x at 13. The ADA then recommended five days of jail and, "[g]iven the ICE detainer, [the ADA] request[ed] that $ 1 bail be set." J. App'x at 13. Because of the detainer, "bail was set at the nominal amount of $ 1.00" so that Hernandez could accrue "time credit towards any eventual sentence he might ... receiv[e]." J. App'x at 12.
While in custody, Hernandez told various DOC staff members, including a social worker, two corrections officers, and a doctor, that he was a U.S. citizen. Each staff member told Hernandez that he or she could not help him. On Tuesday, October 1, 2013, Outlaw issued a second "Immigration Detainer - Notice of Action," instructing DOC to cancel the September 27, 2013 detainer. The securing order indicated that Hernandez's bail was paid on October 1, 2013, after the detainer was lifted. Hernandez did not pay the bail himself. The bail was "donated" by someone at DOC in accordance with customary practice; payment of the $ 1.00 bail permits a detainee in these circumstances to be released when there are no longer any detainers in place -- release is "automatic" upon payment of the nominal bail. Id. at 15-16. Hernandez was released from custody the same day.
On August 3, 2016, Hernandez brought this action. On December 14, 2016, Hernandez filed the Complaint. Hernandez asserted claims against the Government under the FTCA for (1) false arrest and false imprisonment, (2) abuse of process, (3) violation of due process under the New York Constitution, and (4) negligence. Hernandez also asserted claims against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for maintaining a policy of acceding to federal immigration detainers (even when detention is not appropriate) and failing to train its employees on handling immigration detainers.
On February 20, 2017, the Government and the City moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). On March 13, 2018, the district court issued an opinion and order dismissing the Complaint and denying leave to amend. The court held that Hernandez sufficiently alleged standing but dismissed all of Hernandez's causes of action against the Government for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In addition, the district court dismissed Hernandez's claim against the City as too generalized and conclusory. Judgment was entered March 14, 2018. This appeal followed.
We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo . Bldg. Indus. Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. City of New York , 678 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2012). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[W]e accept as true all factual allegations and draw from them all reasonable inferences; but we are not required to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations." Nielsen v. Rabin , 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Accordingly, ‘threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.’ " Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ).
On appeal, Hernandez argues that the district court erred in dismissing his tort claims under the FTCA against the Government and his § 1983 claim against the City. We hold that the district court erred as to Hernandez's false arrest and false imprisonment claim against the Government and as to his official policy claim against the City but properly dismissed the remaining claims.
Under the FTCA, Congress "waived the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees." F.D.I.C. v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) ; see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). "[T]o be actionable under [the FTCA], a claim must allege, inter alia , that the United States ‘would be liable to the claimant’ as ‘a private person’ ‘in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.’ " Id. at 477, 114 S.Ct. 996 (quoting § 1346(b) ). "[T]he source of substantive liability under the FTCA" is the "law of the State." Id. at 478, 114 S.Ct. 996. We therefore look to New York law.
Hernandez asserts claims under the FTCA against the Government for: (1) false arrest and imprisonment; (2) abuse of process; (3) violation of the due process clause of the New York Constitution; and (4) negligence. We address each claim in turn.
Under New York law, the elements of a false arrest and false imprisonment claim are: "(1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged." McGowan v. United States , 825 F.3d 118, 126 (2d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); see Smith v. Cty. of Nassau , 34 N.Y.2d 18, 22, 355 N.Y.S.2d 349, 311 N.E.2d 489 (1974) ().3 "For purposes of the privilege element of a false arrest and imprisonment claim, an act of confinement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tigano v. United States
... ... Comp., Dkt. 14, 70108, 20611), those too must be dismissed. 18 "The FTCA has not waived [the Government's] sovereign immunity with respect to claims that its employees have committed constitutional torts under the federal constitution." Hernandez v. United States , 939 F.3d 191, 205 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme Court has held that for a claim to be actionable against the United States under the FTCA, a claimant "must allege, inter alia , that the United States would be liable to the claimant ... ...
-
Jackson v. Nassau Cnty.
... ... 18-CV-3007(JS)(AKT) United States District Court, E.D. New York. Signed July 28, 2021 552 F.Supp.3d 358 For Plaintiff: ... to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations." Hernandez v. United States , 939 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Nielsen v. Rabin , 746 F.3d 58, 62 ... ...
-
Palmer v. City of New York
... ... 13860; and Nicholas Cardieri, Shield No. 11420, Defendants. 19-CV-5542 (RPK) (CLP) United States District Court, E.D. New York. Signed September 30, 2021 564 F.Supp.3d 231 Karamvir Dahiya, ... Ryan , 142 F. Supp. 2d 287, 296 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (notice-of-claim requirement applies); Hernandez v. Llukaci , No. 16-CV-1030, 2019 WL 1427429, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (same); Dunham v ... ...
-
Gonzalez v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
... 975 F.3d 788 Gerardo GONZALEZ; Simon Chinivizyan, Plaintiffs-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; David Marin; David C. Palmatier; Thomas Winkowski, ... Hernandez v. United States , 939 F.3d 191, 200 (2d Cir. 2019). The detainer against Gonzalez requested up to ... ...