Mendia v. Garcia

Citation165 F.Supp.3d 861
Decision Date26 February 2016
Docket NumberCase No. 10-cv-03910-MEJ
Parties Bernardo Mendia, Plaintiff, v. John M. Garcia, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Anne M. Selin, Graham Marc Buccigross, Hamsa M. Murthy, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff.

Linda Cheng, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Neill Tai Tseng, United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS
MARIA-ELENA JAMES

, United States Magistrate Judge

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Bernardo Mendia's (Plaintiff) Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)

. Mot. to Am., Dkt. No. 101. Defendants John M. Garcia, Ching Chang, and the United States of America (collectively, Defendants) filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 102), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 103). Before Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Amend, Defendants sought to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC,” Dkt. No. 70). See United States and Official-Capacity Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (“U.S. MTD”), Dkt. No. 87; Individual Agent Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (“Agents MTD”), Dkt. No. 90.1 Plaintiff filed Oppositions to those Motions to Dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 97–98. However, the parties did not complete briefing as to the Motions to Dismiss, because—with the Court's permission—Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to file his Third Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 100. Having considered the parties' positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

The following factual background is taken from Plaintiff's SAC. Dkt. No. 70. Plaintiff acquired derivative United States citizenship in 1987.2 Id. ¶ 10. On May 9, 2007, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with financial crimes, at which time he sought the assistance of a bail bondsman to secure his release from pretrial detention. Id. ¶¶ 19-20, 26-27. On June 15, 2007, Garcia and Chang, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), interviewed Plaintiff, ostensibly selecting him for questioning because he is foreign-born. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Plaintiff informed Chang that he was a United States citizen, gave his full social security number, and stated he had a United States passport issued in 1997. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff proceeded to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, to which Garcia allegedly said something to the effect of “Oh! You don't want to talk?” and We'll see if you want to talk when we're deporting your ass!” Id. ¶¶ 42-43, 47.

Chang placed an immigration detainer3 on Plaintiff that same day. Id. ¶ 47; see Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. C, Dkt. No. 85. The detainer stated ICE had initiated an investigation to determine whether Plaintiff was subject to removal. Id. Plaintiff alleges the immigration detainer “dissuaded all bail bondsmen [from] conduct[ing] business with Plaintiff [,] and he was thus unable to obtain a bail bond. SAC ¶¶ 53, 55-57.

On January 8, 2008, Garcia issued a second detainer. RJN, Ex. D. This detainer was stamped with the words “Drop Hold” and was marked “Please cancel the detainer previously placed by this Service on 06-15-2007.”4 Id. Plaintiff alleges he was not aware the detainer had been cancelled until July 31, 2009, when the state court released Plaintiff on his own recognizance.5 SAC ¶¶ 77, 82, 84. Plaintiff refused to accept release until the court informed him no detainer was in place. Id. ¶ 84.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff submitted an administrative tort claim to DHS on June 9, 2009, which the agency denied on March 1, 2010. Id. ¶ 3. On August 31, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his initial Complaint against Garcia and DHS. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleged constitutional and tort claims arising out of the detainer Garcia placed on him while he was in state custody. Id. ¶¶ 11-15. Plaintiff, still proceeding pro se, then filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 11, 2011, in which he (1) added Chang as a defendant; (2) asserted claims 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)

for violations of his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and right to bail; and (3) asserted claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. FAC ¶¶ 77-102.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC (Dkt. No. 34), which the Court granted on the grounds that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing (Dkt. No. 51). Plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal of the action (Dkt. No. 52), and on April 8, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Plaintiff could show that Defendants caused his injury and thus had standing to sue. See Mendia v. Garcia , 768 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.2014)

.

In the Court's December 17, 2014 Order to Set Briefing Schedule, the Court granted Plaintiff 90 days to obtain new counsel and seek leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 63. Plaintiff timely sought leave on March 10, 2015 (Dkt. No. 64) and filed his SAC, again proceeding pro se, on April 1, 2015 (Dkt. No. 68). As noted, Defendants then moved to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC. U.S. MTD; Agents MTD. The United States' Motion addresses Plaintiff's FTCA claims for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as Plaintiff's declaratory relief claims for violations of his Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and substantive due process. See U.S. Mot. The Agents' Motion addresses Plaintiff's Bivens

claims for violations of his Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and substantive due process. See Agents Mot. Plaintiff subsequently obtained counsel (Dkt. No. 93) and filed Oppositions to Defendants' Motions (Dkt. Nos. 96, 98). Thereafter, the parties notified the Court Plaintiff intended to seek leave to file a third amended complaint. Dkt. No. 99. The Court suspended the deadline for Defendants' Replies and the hearing pending this Order. Dkt. No. 100.

In seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to assert 11 new claims, including (1) Federal Tort Act claims against the United States for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process; (2) Bivens

claims against Chang and Garcia for violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, Fifth Amendment right to equal protection, First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and Eighth Amendment right against excessive bail; and (3) claims for equitable relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act against all Defendants for violations of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and Eighth Amendment right against excessive bail. Prop. TAC ¶¶ 110-19, 131-54, 160-76, 183-88, 197-224. Plaintiff also seeks to add a new defendant, ICE Field Office Director Timothy Aitken. Id. ¶ 14; Mot. to Am. at 1. All Defendants oppose amendment.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

All Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice to support their Motions to Dismiss, asking the Court to take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Exhibit A: court records from The People of the State of California v. Bernardo Mendia , Case No. 1–126105–6; (2) Exhibit B: court records from the case of The People of California v. Bernardo Mendia , Case No. 162581; (3) Exhibit C: Immigration Detainer (stamped “Hold”) dated June 15, 2007; (4) Exhibit D: Immigration Detainer (stamped “Drop Hold”) dated January 8, 2008; (5) Exhibit E: Plaintiff's First Amended FTCA claim to DHS dated August 9, 2009; (6) Exhibit F: October 9, 2009 letter and supplemental materials from Plaintiff to DHS counsel in support of his FTCA claim; (7) Exhibit G: letter dated March 1, 2010 from DHS to Plaintiff, denying his FTCA claim; (8) Exhibit H: March 10, 2010 letter and supplemental materials from Plaintiff to DHS counsel; (9) Exhibit I: certification stamp affixed by the Clerk of the Superior Court of California for Alameda County. RJN, Exs. A-I, Dkt. Nos. 85-(1-24).

Plaintiff objects to Defendants' request. Dkt. No. 97. It appears, however, that Plaintiff does not contest the authenticity of the documents or their relevance, only Defendants' characterization of them. Id. at 1. In the Agent Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, they address “Facts for Judicial Notice,” in which they summarize many of the documents in their request. This, Plaintiff contends, is argument and not appropriate for judicial notice. Id.

The Court may take judicial notice of matters that are either (1) generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)

. However, [a] court may not take judicial notice of one party's opinion of how a matter of public record should be interpreted.” United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co. , 300 F.Supp.2d 964, 974 (E.D.Cal.2004). Rather, the Court may only take judicial notice of the documents themselves. Proper subjects of judicial notice court documents already in the public record and documents filed in other courts. See

Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc. , 442 F.3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir.2006). Thus, courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc. , 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.1992). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A and B as they are public court documents.

The Court may also take judicial notice of Exhibits C and D,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Microsoft Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, CASE NO. C16–0538JLR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • 8 February 2017
    ...and obtain them. Accordingly, Microsoft's "fears" of similar injuries in the future are not "merely speculative."5 Mendia v. Garcia , 165 F.Supp.3d 861, 895 (N.D. Cal. 2016).For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Microsoft has adequately alleged an injury and a likelihood of si......
  • Colasanti v. City of Portland
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • 19 August 2021
    ......Further, the standard for. establishing a prima facie case under the Oregon disability. statute is the same as the analogous ... restitution by the federal court.'” Mendia v. Garcia , 165 F.Supp.3d 861, 894 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting. ......
  • Trinh v. Homan, Case No.: SACV 18-00316-CJC(GJSx)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • 11 June 2020
    ...would be nothing more than a retrospective opinion that their rights were violated, the Court cannot issue it. See Mendia v. Garcia , 165 F. Supp. 3d 861, 894 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (declining to issue a retrospective declaratory judgment that defendants violated plaintiffs rights); Green v. Bran......
  • Flores v. Velocity Express, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-05790-JST.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 24 April 2017
    ...Federal Rule of Evidence 201 because they include documents that are already in the public record. See ECF No. 246; Mendia v. Garcia, 165 F.Supp.3d 861, 872 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ; Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 1995).21 The Court notes that only one of the judicially-noticed dec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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