Quinones-Pimentel v. Cannon
| Docket Number | 22-1307 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2023 |
| Parties | DARWIN QUINONES-PIMENTEL; VICTOR VEGA-ENCARNACION; NAICOM CORPORATION; NAICOM DATA CENTER; ARTIST DESIGNS & MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; KIARAS, LLC, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. NICHOLAS W. CANNON, in his personal and individual capacity as Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico; DOUGLAS A. LEFF, in his personal and individual capacity as former FBI Special Agent in charge of San Juan Division; BRAD REX; LANCE LANGE; KEVIN PEARSON; ANDREW BAKER; CHRIS KUHN; CELIA MAHLER; CLAY REHRIG; NOAH EAMES; JUSTIN TURNER; MARK ETHERIDGE; CLINT NAFAY; JUAN GALARZA; JASON LOPEZ; UNITED STATES; EMILY RINKEL; JORDAN SMITH; KEVIN GEDEON; BERT EICHHORN, Defendants, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., [*] U.S. District Judge]
Rafael F. Castro Lang for appellants.
Daniel Aguilar, Appellate Staff Attorney, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, with whom Brian M. Boynton Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mark B. Stern, Appellate Staff Attorney, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellees Nicholas W. Cannon Douglas A. Leff, Brad Rex, Lance Lange, Kevin Pearson, Andrew Baker, Chris Kuhn, Celia Mahler, Clay Rehrig, Noah Eames Justin Turner, Mark Etheridge, Clint Nafay, Juan Galarza Jason Lopez, and United States of America.
Kronsky K. Sherer, with whom Chad M. Hagan, Hagan Noll &Boyle, LLC, Jose L. Ramirez-Coll, and Antonetti Montalvo &Ramirez-Coll were on brief, for appellees Emily Rinkel, Jordan Smith, Kevin Gedeon, and Bert Eichhorn.
Before Barron, Chief Judge, Selya and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
After being subjected to alleged unconstitutional searches and seizures, Appellants filed suit seeking money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).[1] Disagreeing with Appellants' take on the matter, Appellees filed motions to dismiss, which the district court granted. Appellants, unhappy with the district court's decision, brought the case to us. Having carefully considered all arguments, we affirm, albeit on narrower reasoning than the district court.
To begin, we turn to the factual[2] and procedural background (appropriately abbreviated) for context. Appellants here include () Naicom
Corporation ("Naicom"), a network and internet communication platform, and its co-founders, Darwin Quinones-Pimentel ("Quinones") and Victor Vega-Encarnacion ("Vega"). Appellees, on the other hand, include an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") for the District of Puerto Rico (and several other unidentified AUSAs), Special Agents and employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and private parties employed by companies Dish Network and NagraStar (alleged Naicom competitors).[3]
Believing that Naicom was a threat to their business, the Dish and NagraStar Appellees investigated Naicom for piracy. Despite not finding any evidence to support their investigation, the Dish and NagraStar Appellees complained to the FBI Appellees, alleging that Naicom was running a pirate operation. According to Appellants, the Dish and NagraStar Appellees did so to secure their own participation in the execution of search warrants of Naicom's offices and Data Center and, while performing said searches, get access to Naicom's confidential intellectual property and trade secrets.
Starting in September 2017, the Dish and NagraStar Appellees worked with the FBI Appellees during the FBI's criminal investigation of Naicom. This investigation culminated in the AUSA and FBI Appellees securing two search warrants: one for Naicom Corporation, located at 701 Ponce de Leon, Suite 208, and one for Naicom's Data Center, located at 4SS N2 Via Josefina.
Appellants say that these warrants were procured based upon knowingly false and perjured statements.
On August 27, 2019, the FBI, Dish, and NagraStar Appellees searched Suite 208 and seized documents, two hard drives, two USB drives, one cell phone, and one tablet, all containing business trade secrets and intellectual property information. During that search, the same Appellees searched Suite 207, which was the headquarters of Vega's other business, Artist Designs &Management Corporation (also an Appellant here), despite being informed by a Naicom staff member that Suite 207 belonged to an independent business and was not included in the search warrant. In Appellants' view, this search was beyond the scope of the warrant and, therefore, warrantless.
That same day, several of the FBI, Dish, and NagraStar Appellees also searched Naicom's Data Center. Present at the time of the search was Quinones, who witnessed the FBI Appellees allow the Dish and NagraStar Appellees to access and search Naicom's computers, servers, and hardware and to take photographs. For his part, Quinones asked for a chance to demonstrate that Naicom was a legitimate business. Finding no evidence of criminal activity, the AUSA and FBI Appellees instructed Quinones and Vega to report to the San Juan FBI offices for an interview. There, Quinones and Vega answered the FBI, Dish, and NagraStar Appellees' questions and eventually asked to end the interview due to the Dish and NagraStar Appellees' questioning regarding Naicom's technology.
Two days later on August 29, 2019, the FBI, Dish, and NagraStar Appellees took a second bite at the apple and searched (purportedly under the original warrant) Naicom's Data Center once more. As during the first search of Naicom's Data Center, Quinones again observed the Dish and NagraStar Appellees accessing Naicom's computers, servers, and hardware. In Appellants' view, this search was also beyond the scope of the search warrant, because any probable cause had dissipated after not finding any evidence of criminal activity during their search two days prior, and for that reason, the search was warrantless.
Wanting their property returned, Appellants filed a motion to that effect under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), arguing that the searches and seizures violated their Fourth Amendment rights. Without conceding any constitutional violation, the United States government filed a non-opposition response, and the seized property was returned.
Appellants now claim three Bivens causes of action for money damages related to the searches and seizures. In Count One, they say that Appellees conspired with each other to use false evidence and statements in support of the affidavit used to acquire the search warrants -- all in violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).[4] Count Two says that Appellees' search of Suite 207, the site of Vega's Artist Designs &Management Corporation, exceeded the scope of the Naicom Corporation search warrant because Suite 207 belonged to a separate business and was not included in the search warrant, whereas Count Three says that Appellees' second search of Naicom's Data Center exceeded the scope of the Data Center search warrant because it had been searched two days prior.
The district court dismissed Appellants' complaint, concluding that their claims arose within a new context of Bivens, and special factors at issue counseled against extending relief to Appellants' claims (more on this later). This timely appeal followed.
Appellants' appeal hinges upon whether the district court correctly applied Bivens and its progeny to the claims at issue here, which we review de novo. Gonzalez v. Velez, 864 F.3d 45, 50 (1st Cir. 2017). Before getting to our assessment, we take a deep dive into the Bivens landscape.
Our Constitution does not expressly provide for money damages for constitutional wrongs. In re Fin. Oversight &Mgmt. Bd., 41 F.4th 29, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2022). A federal statute enacted by Congress in 1871, nevertheless, does provide for money damages against state actors who violate the Constitution. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Congress, however, has never enacted a similar statute against federal actors. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 130 (2017).
Bivens then entered the scene in 1971. There, "federal agents . . . allegedly manacled the plaintiff and threatened his family while arresting him for narcotics violations." Egbert v. Boule, 142 S.Ct. 1793, 1802 (2022) (citing Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397). The Supreme Court "held that a Fourth Amendment violation by federal agents, acting under color of governmental authority, gave rise to [an implied] cause of action for money damages against those agents in their individual capacities." Gonzalez, 864 F.3d at 52 (citing Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389).
In this same vein, the Supreme Court expanded Bivens to two more contexts. First up was Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 229-31, 248-49 (1979), where the Supreme Court allowed a damages action pursuant to the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause against a Congressperson for sex discrimination towards a member of their staff. Second was Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 16, 2023 (1980), where the Supreme Court extended Bivens to include an Eighth Amendment violation in which federal prison officials failed to provide adequate medical treatment for a prisoner's asthma, resulting in his death.
Since these cases were decided, however, the Supreme Court has charted a significantly different path, consistently refusing "to extend the Bivens doctrine to new settings." Gonzalez, 864 F.3d at 52; see Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S.Ct. 735, 743 (2020) (gathering Supreme Court cases declining to extend Bivens). This hesitance stems from the Supreme Court's recognition that "it is a significant step...
To continue reading
Request your trial