Mendia v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 03 November 2017
• Docket Number: Nos. 16-15742, 16-16184.,s. 16-15742, 16-16184.
• Parties: Bernardo MENDIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John M. GARCIA ; Ching Chang, Defendants-Appellants, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

874 F.3d 1118

Bernardo MENDIA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John M. GARCIA ; Ching Chang, Defendants-Appellants,
and
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant.

Nos. 16-15742, 16-16184.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 11, 2017—San Francisco, California
Filed November 3, 2017

Daniel Aguilar (argued) and H. Thomas Byron III, Appellate Staff; Brian Stretch, United States Attorney; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.

David R. Williams (argued), Ann M. Koppuzha, and Michael J. Shepard, Hogan Lovells US LLP, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges, and Robert H. Whaley,^* District Judge.

SUMMARY^**

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:

Bernardo Mendia, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was detained in county jail when Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") agents John Garcia and Ching Chang lodged an immigration detainer placing a federal hold to pick him up when state authorities were ready to release him. Mendia sued Garcia, Chang, and the Department of Homeland Security under

874 F.3d 1120

Bivens¹ and the Federal Torts Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), asserting violations of his constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen. The district court found that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Mendia's Bivens claims, and this interlocutory appeal followed. Discovery proceeded on the remaining claims in district court. After the notice of appeal on the Bivens ruling was filed, however, the district court sanctioned Mendia for egregious misconduct during that discovery and ultimately dismissed his FTCA claims. Defendants then immediately moved in our court for a limited remand to allow the district court to consider applying the sanction to Mendia's remaining claims. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP") 12.1(b).

Under FRAP 12.1(b), a court of appeals may remand a case to the district court, while still retaining jurisdiction, for the limited purpose of allowing that court to make a final ruling on the matter based on an earlier indicative ruling. This procedure is employed in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 62.1, which permits a party to request an "indicative ruling" from the district court when that court lacks jurisdiction in the matter based on a pending appeal. Unlike our sister circuits, we have never addressed whether a limited remand is permissible without first moving in the district court under FRCP 62.1 for a targeted "indicative ruling." We hold that it is permissible, and in this case, a limited remand is appropriate so the government can move for dismissal of the remaining claims.

I

Plaintiff-appellee Mendia alleges he was being held in pretrial detention in Contra Costa County, California, when the two ICE agents lodged an immigration detainer, erroneously believing he was subject to removal. Mendia sued the agents and the Department of Homeland Security under Bivens and the FTCA. The individual defendants then moved to dismiss the Bivens claims on qualified immunity grounds, which the court denied. After Garcia and Chang filed an interlocutory appeal from that denial, the case proceeded to discovery on Mendia's remaining FTCA claims.

During discovery, Mendia repeatedly failed to comply with orders to compel discovery. His misconduct included failing to produce requested documents to support his damages calculations, refusing to attend meet and confer sessions, and failing to appear for his own deposition. When he finally appeared at his rescheduled deposition, Mendia was completely uncooperative and claimed he was unable to recall basic information such as his immediate family members' names, his education and work histories, his current address, or whether he had ever owned a bank account or paid taxes. After giving him several warnings, imposing a $3500 fine, and ordering Mendia to show cause as to why further sanctions should not be imposed for his repeated noncompliance with his discovery obligations, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James finally...