Papa v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 25 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-55051.,00-55051. |
| Citation | 281 F.3d 1004 |
| Parties | Wesley PAPA; Fabrizia Papa; Wesleano Papa; Kerly Papa; Luciene Papa; Cirlene Papa; Lucia Lima De Oliveir Papa, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Mauricio Papa, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun, De Simone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman LLP, Venice, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Julie Zatz and Christopher Brunwin, Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding.
Before LEAVY, T.G. NELSON, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Lucia Lima De Oliveir Papa and her six children appeal from the dismissal of their first amended complaint against the United States, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and one hundred John Does stemming from the death of Ms. Papa's husband and the children's father, Mauricio Papa, while in INS custody in 1991. The district court dismissed the appellants' Bivens claims for failure to state a claim, their claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)1 and the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)2 as untimely and for failure to state a claim, and their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)3 claims on the ground that the Government had produced the required materials. Finally, the district court denied the Papas' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on the grounds that the proposed complaint did not solve the problems inherent in the previous complaint. The Papas appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Mauricio Papa, a citizen of Brazil, entered the United States in 1991. He was taken into INS custody for possessing a false visa. He chose to remain in INS detention instead of being summarily deported. After three months in detention, he was killed in an exercise yard by another detainee, Benito Revarez. Revarez had a criminal record, although not for violent crime, and was a gang member. He was subsequently convicted of voluntary manslaughter for Mr. Papa's death.
In 1993, an attorney representing the Papas filed administrative claims with the INS on behalf of Mauricio Papa's estate and his survivors. The INS denied the claims on November 22, 1993, in a letter to the Papas' attorney. The letter stated that after an investigation, the INS had determined that no negligence on the agency's part contributed to Mr. Papa's death and that the agency therefore lacked liability under the FTCA. The letter also explained that the Papas had six months from the date of denial within which to file suit in a United States District Court. None of the Papas filed suit within six months of the denial of their administrative claims.
In 1998, the Papas hired a different attorney and filed claims in a federal district court for the first time. The Papas filed a first amended complaint on March 26, 1999. That complaint alleged violations of federal, state, and international law by the United States, the INS, and 100 John Does. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice on November 15, 1999. The court dismissed the appellants' Bivens claims on the ground that Mr. Papa, as an alien seeking entry into the United States, was not entitled to due process protection. Alternatively, the court held that the Papas had failed to meet the heightened pleading standard required in claims against federal officials. The court dismissed the Papas' claims under the FTCA and the ATCA as untimely. Alternatively, the court held that both the first amended and the proposed second amended complaints failed to state claims under these statutes. The court dismissed Appellants' FOIA claims on the ground that the Government had produced the required materials. Finally, the district court denied the Papas' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Papas sought reconsideration, which the district court denied, and then filed this timely appeal. We conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the majority of issues. We conclude that the court erred, however, in its dismissal of one Bivens claim, asserted by the four youngest children, and all of appellants' FOIA claims. The court also erred by denying leave to amend those claims as well. The district court properly dismissed the remaining claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.4 We review dismissal based on statutes of limitations de novo as well.5 We may affirm on any proper ground supported by the record.6 We review denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion.7
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,8 the Supreme Court held that federal courts have inherent authority to award damages to plaintiffs whose federal constitutional rights were violated by federal officials.9 Appellants raised three Bivens claims in their first amended complaint, one of which was raised in their proposed second amended complaint.
We conclude that the Bivens claims of Ms. Papa and the two oldest children, as well as the claims of Papa's estate, are untimely, a point the Papas appear to concede in their reply brief. However, the claims of the four youngest appellants, Wesleano, Kerly, Luciene, and Cirlene, are timely.
Although federal law determines when a Bivens claim accrues, the law of the forum state determines the statute of limitations for such a claim.10 In California, the statute of limitations is one year.11 Tolling provisions for Bivens claims are also borrowed from the forum state.12 The applicable California tolling provision reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
Disabilities of minority or insanity
(a) If a person entitled to bring an action, mentioned in Chapter 3(commencing with Section 335)[13] is, at the time the cause of action accrued either under the age of majority or insane, the time of the disability is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.14
Pursuant to the above provision, the limitations period for the four minor children's claims was tolled until they reached the age of majority or filed suit.
The defendants' argument that any tolling ended in 1993 fails. In 1993, the appellants did not litigate the claims they now seek to raise. They only filed administrative claims.15 Accordingly, we conclude that their actions did not end the tolling provided by the California statute.16 Therefore, the Bivens claims of Wesleano, Kerly, Luciene, and Cirlene Papa are timely. We now turn to the alternative reasons for dismissal provided by the district court.
The district court dismissed the appellants' Bivens claims on the ground that the Due Process Clause does not protect aliens seeking entry into the United States. Alternatively, the court held that the Papas had not met heightened pleading requirements necessary for Bivens claims. Appellants argue that the district court erred on both grounds, and we agree.
The first amended complaint contained four constitutional claims.17 The first and second claims alleged a violation of Mr. Papa's rights against (1) unreasonable search and seizure and (2) discrimination upon his entry. The district court correctly dismissed these claims. Aliens are not afforded due process protections when they seek admission to the United States.18
The third19 and part of the fourteenth20 claims alleged violations of Mr. Papa's rights21 while he was detained. Limited rights under the Due Process Clause extend to detained aliens. Officials may not, for example, consciously disregard or act with deliberate indifference toward a detainee's safety by knowingly placing that person in harm's way.22
In light of the above, the question becomes whether appellants sufficiently alleged a violation of the limited rights afforded Mr. Papa while he was detained. The district court correctly concluded that heightened pleading standards apply.23 Thus, appellants must not merely have alleged sufficient violations, they must also have included "some facts" in support of their allegations regarding defendants' state of mind.24
We conclude that the appellants have asserted a claim sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss based on their allegations that the guards in the detention facility knowingly placed Mr. Papa in harm's way, with conscious disregard for, or deliberate indifference to, his rights under the Due Process Clause. The declaration of Mr. Papa's killer supplements the factual allegations regarding the guards' state of mind and helps satisfy the heightened pleading requirements. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred by dismissing this claim and by failing to allow amendment. The four youngest appellants should be allowed to proceed with the claim.
The applicable federal statute of limitations bars all of the appellants' FTCA claims.25 The time limitation for FTCA claims is not tolled during a claimant's minority.26 The FTCA provides that "a tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months of the date of mailing ... of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented."27
It is undisputed that the Papas brought their FTCA claims five years after their administrative claims were denied. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jama v. U.S.I.N.S.
...between the two statutes, courts began to look to the TVPA to provide the statute of limitations for the ATCA. See Papa v. U.S., 281 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.2002); In re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 304 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1069 (N.D.Ill.2004). It was determined that, although origi......
-
Ziglar v. Abbasi
...care); Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1271, 1275–1276 (C.A.11 2004) (detainee in solitary confinement); Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1010–1011 (C.A.9 2002) (due process claims arising from death of immigration detainee); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1293–1296 (C.A.4 1978) (......
-
Cruz v. U.S.
...it necessary to engage in interstitial federal common lawmaking by creating a statute of limitations. See also Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1011-13 (9th Cir.2002) (engaging in interstitial lawmaking to create a statute of limitations for the Alien Tort Claims Act). The case at bar ......
-
Bowoto v. Chevton Corp.
...v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 717 (9th Cir.2003) ("The statute of limitations under the ATCA is 10 years."); Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.2002) ("[W]e decide that the statute of limitations applicable to the ATCA is that provided by the TVPA."). In reaching this deci......
-
The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
...supra note 312, at 2711-14. (353) For two exceptions, both involving immigrants detained in U.S. facilities, see Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1011-13 (9th Cir. 2002) (reversing dismissal of claim by family of immigrant killed while in detention), and Jama v. United States, 22 F. Su......
-
Papa v. U.S.
...Appeals Court ALIEN BIVENS ACTION ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT Papa v. U.S., 281 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002). The widow and children of an alien who had been killed by another detainee while being held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) brought Bivens and Federal Tort Claim Act (FTC......