Jge v. United States

Decision Date09 August 2016
Docket NumberCV 14-710 MV/WPL
PartiesMINOR JGE et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

MINOR JGE et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defendants.

CV 14-710 MV/WPL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

August 9, 2016


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Qualified Immunity and Memorandum in Support [Doc. 43], Defendant United States' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Memorandum in Support [Doc. 44], and United States' Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Memorandum in Support [Doc. 59]. The Court, having considered the motions, briefs, and relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Qualified Immunity and Memorandum in Support is well-taken and will be GRANTED, and that the United States' Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Memorandum in Support is well-taken and will be GRANTED and, consequently, the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Memorandum in Support is MOOT.

BACKGROUND

The tragic facts as alleged by Plaintiffs in their First Amended Complaint [Doc. 19] are as follows. On September 19, 2011, the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department arrested Edward Quintana after a search warrant executed at his home revealed "approximately 255

Page 2

grams of heroin (approximately 9 ounces of heroin), scales, approximately $12,000.00 in US Currency, and three (3) loaded stolen semi-automatic Handguns." Doc. 19 ¶¶ 45-49. Within six days of his release from the Metropolitan Detention Center on September 20, 2011, on September 27, 2011, Quintana had been debriefed as a Confidential Source by Defendant Christopher Scott Godier of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"). Id. ¶¶ 50-51, 55. See also Defendant's Material Jurisdictional Facts ("DMJF") ¶ 1. Even so, "Quintana was not an employee of the United States and was not a federal law enforcement officer." Id. ¶ 19.

Defendants Christopher Scott Godier, Patricia G. Whelan, and John R. Castleberry were "involved in the Recruitment, Debriefings, Establishment, Activation, Direction, Control, Management, and Supervision of" Quintana. Doc. 19 ¶¶ 57-59. Defendant Matthew B. Mayfield supervised and managed Defendants Godier, Whelan, and Castleberry. Id. ¶ 60. Defendant Raymond "Keith" Brown supervised and managed Defendants Mayfield, Godier, Whelan, and Castleberry. Id. ¶ 66. Defendant Joseph M. Arabit supervised and managed Defendants Brown, Mayfield, Godier, Whelan, and Castleberry. Id. ¶ 69.

At roughly the same time of Quintana's debriefing on September 27, 2011, the United States and the Individual Defendants in this case "created, organized, implemented, supervised, and participated in Operation Smack City—an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) investigation in Las Vegas, New Mexico." Doc. 19 ¶ 53. This investigation evidently drew heavily on the use of Confidential Informants, including Quintana, who "was registered as an active DEA Informant from on or about October 11, 2011 through April 4, 2013." Id. ¶¶ 54, 75-76, 91, 102, 391. Quintana "remained under the original State of New Mexico charges of Trafficking a Controlled Substance (heroin) and Conspiracy" while "the United States and the Defendants controlled the

Page 3

evidence and the status and direction of the State of New Mexico charges" as part of the arrangement by which he worked for the United States as an informant. Id. ¶¶ 82-83 (emphasis original). At the time he was engaged by the United States to act as an informant, Quintana's "violent propensities" were clear from his criminal record, which included domestic violence, battery upon a household member, child abuse, false imprisonment, battery upon a household member with a firearm, attempted murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, felon in possession of a firearm, trafficking a controlled substance, receiving or transferring a stolen firearm, and threats of battery and arson. Id. ¶ 146, 147. In particular, in 2005, Quintana was convicted of Aggravated Battery Against a Household Member with a Deadly Weapon after battering his wife in front of his wife's children, arming himself with a handgun and pressing it against his wife's mouth, saying "I want to kill you, you fucking bitch." Id. ¶ 155-164.

Sometime in August 2012, during the period in which Quintana was acting as an informant, "Quintana and his family moved into the residence of" Jason Estrada and his family. Id. ¶ 122. See also DMJF ¶ 10 (("Quintana, with the permission of Plaintiffs, moved into Plaintiffs' residence in August 2012."). Defendants "were aware (or should have been aware/required to be aware) of the residential location" of Quintana while he was living with the Estrada family. Doc. 19 ¶ 364. The Estrada family was not "aware of the DEA confidential informant status of DEA Informant Quintana." Id. ¶ 125. None of the Defendants warned Jason Estrada or his family "regarding the violent nature of DEA Informant Quintana." Id. ¶ 341.

"[R]elatively immediately" after Quintana and his family began living with the Estrada family as "Household Members," on September 1, 2012, Quintana began to sexually abuse Jason Estrada's minor son, JGE, who was then five years old. Id. ¶¶ 127, 333 (emphasis in original).

Page 4

This abuse continued until February 20, 2013, when Quintana and his family moved out. See id. ¶ 135.

Several weeks later, "JGE worked up enough courage to inform [his parents] that [Quintana] had committed the horrifying acts of Child Molestation against JGE." Id. ¶ 227. Upon learning of these allegations, Jason Estrada "searched for answers and information from mutual friends and associates of [Quintana] before confronting [Quintana] about the terrible Sexual Acts he committed upon his only child." Id. ¶ 230. Evidently, however, Quintana learned that Jason Estrada had begun to make inquiries about Quintana's conduct. See id. ¶ 231. In response, on April 3, 2013, "Quintana and two other males travelled to the" Estrada residence, where, in the presence of JGE, they beat and shot Jason Estrada; Jason Estrada soon died as a result of these injuries. Id. ¶ 136-37, 139, 258-262. Approximately one day later, "the United States and the Defendants deactivated DEA Informant Edward Quintana." Id. ¶ 141.

Based on this tragic series of events, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants (1) formed a "special relationship" with Quintana and (2) created the danger of substantial risk of harms to the Plaintiffs, and thereby assumed a duty to protect and warn Plaintiffs against the "known and foreseeable dangers of harm" posed by Quintana, which duty they breached, thereby causing the harms suffered by Plaintiffs. As a result of the government's alleged breach of its duties, on February 5, 2014, Plaintiffs timely filed an administrative tort claim with the United States Department of Justice and the DEA. Id. ¶ 27. It appears that the agencies did not respond to these administrative claims, such that after six months Plaintiffs were permitted to file a civil action. Id. ¶¶ 29-31. See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a).

Page 5

Thereafter, on August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs JGE, the estate of Jason Estrada, Gabriela Gallegos (Jason Estrada's wife), Jolene Gallegos (Jason Estrada's sister), and Joyce Estrada (Jason Estrada's mother) commenced the instant action. In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs set forth claims against Defendant United States, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for negligence (Counts I through XVII), and claims against each of the individual Defendants (Godier, Whelan, Castleberry, Mayfield, Brown, and Arabit) (the "Individual Defendants"), under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violation of JGE and Jason Estrada's Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights to be free from bodily harm, and for violation of the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights of JGE, Gabriela Gallegos, Jolene Estrada, and Joyce Estrada to a continuing relationship with Jason Estrada (Counts XVIII through XXXVI). The Individual Defendants and the government have now moved to dismiss all of the claims against them. Plaintiffs oppose the motions.

DISCUSSION

I. Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs allege that by activating Quintana as a confidential informant and failing to supervise him properly, the Individual Defendants created the danger, namely, Quintana, thereby causing the harms suffered by Plaintiffs. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs claim that the Individual Defendants engaged in conduct that violated the substantive due process rights of JGE and Jason Estrada, and deprived Plaintiffs JGE, Gabriela Gallegos, Joyce Estrada, and Jolene Estrada of their protected liberty interests in familial companionship. The Individual Defendants move to dismiss on two separate grounds. First, they argue that there is no recognized Bivens action for Plaintiffs' claims. Second, they argue that even if the Court were to recognize a Bivens action, dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims is required on the basis of qualified

Page 6

immunity. As set forth herein, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs' claims against the Individual Defendants must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. Accordingly, the Court need not reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs' claims are properly brought pursuant to Bivens.

A. Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a Court may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "The nature of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the allegations within the four corners of the complaint." Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT