Quiroz v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation Agent Robert Hall

• Decision Date: 03 December 2012
• Docket Number: Case No.: 2:12-CV-212
• Parties: JOSE QUIROZ, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AGENT ROBERT HALL, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

JOSE QUIROZ, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AGENT ROBERT HALL, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 2:12-CV-212

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Date: December 3, 2012

OPINION AND ORDER¹

This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants (docket at 71). Defendants filed a memorandum in support of this motion (docket at 72); plaintiff filed a response in opposition (docket at 85); and defendants filed a reply brief (docket at 98). For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to plaintiff's state law claim against the United States for malicious prosecution; the motion is denied as to all other claims.

BACKGROUND

Jose Quiroz was arrested on April 19, 2009, by federal agents conducting a drug trafficking investigation. The arrest was made pursuant to an arrest warrant issued in the Northern District of Indiana in the case of United States of America v. Dwayne Crawford, et al., 2:08-CV-214. Quiroz was arrested at his home in Chicago, where he had lived and worked for many years. The federal agents, which included FBI agents, ATF agents, and other lawenforcement agents, went to Chicago to arrest a man who went by the nickname "Chu," and who had tattoos on his back. Certain of the agents had conducted surveillance near Quiroz's home and at one point saw a man they believed to be "Chu" pull into Quiroz's driveway, back out, park on the street, and enter a nearby residence (not Quiroz's). Quiroz claims that based only on this surveillance information, the agents decided to arrest him. Plaintiff's Brief, p. 2. He claims that eight federal agents "with their guns drawn barged into the Quiroz home. They pointed their guns at a shocked Mrs. Quiroz, scared the children, and rummaged through the home." Id. It is undisputed that the agents did not find any contraband in the Quiroz home. Still, Mr. Quiroz was arrested as part of the drug conspiracy investigation. Quiroz was charged by way of a superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and several counts of knowingly and intentionally using a communications facility, namely a telephone, to facilitate a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). See Superseding Indictment, docket at 25, U.S. v. Crawford, et al., 2:08-CR-214. In the Superseding Indictment, Quiroz was named as "Jose A. Quiroz, a/k/a 'Chu.'" Quiroz maintains that the defendants knew he was not "Chu," but that they arrested him anyway based on the mere fact that "Chu" turned around in Quiroz's driveway on one occasion. Plaintiff's Brief, p. 2. About 18 months after he was arrested, the government dismissed the charges against Quiroz. See 2:08-CR-214, docket at 235.

Quiroz then filed this lawsuit against FBI agents Robert Hall and Lana Sabata; ATF agents Jessica Salley, Daniel Mitten, Mickey French, David Coulson, and Roger Crafton; Gary, Indiana, Police Sergeant Larry Robertson, and Gary, Indiana, Police Detective Justin Illyes; and the United States. In his second amended complaint (docket at 63) Quiroz asserts a claim forfalse arrest, a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation, a claim of "failure to intervene," a claim of conspiracy, and an Indiana state law claim against the United States for malicious prosecution. Amended Complaint, docket at 63. The defendants move to dismiss this case for several different reasons, as discussed below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide the merits of the case. Under the "simplified notice pleading" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court considers whether relief would be possible under any set of facts that could be established consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems, 987 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir.1993). Generally, mere vagueness or lack of detail does not constitute grounds for a motion to dismiss." Strauss v. City of Chicago, 760 F.2d 765 (7th Cir. 1985).

When considering a defendant's motion to dismiss the court must view the complaint's allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). All well-pleaded facts and allegations in the plaintiff's complaint must be taken to be true, Ed Miniat, Inc. v. Globe Life Ins. Group, Inc., 805 F.2d 732, 733 (7th Cir. 1986), and the plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. "Furthermore, a complaint is not required to allege all, or any, of the facts logically entailed by the claim ... [A] complaint does not fail to state a claim merely because it does not set forth a complete and convincing picture of the alleged wrongdoing." American Nurses Assn. v. State of Illinois, 783 F.2d 716, 727 (7th Cir. 1986).

1. Failure to Adequately Plead Personal Involvement.

The first ground defendants present for dismissal of Quiroz's complaint is that he failed to adequately plead that defendants were actually personally involved in any acts that caused Quiroz any constitutional deprivation. Defendants' Memorandum, pp. 4-5. Defendants argue that Quiroz's second amended complaint contains only vague and generalized allegations, with no facts to support them. Defendants argue that "[t]he second amended complaint contains not one paragraph making single factual allegation attributed to any single individual defendant. This vague phrasing that 'defendants' did something, does not adequately connect specific defendants to an illegal act. . . . Thus, Quiroz has failed to adequately plead a constitutional violation that provides any specific defendant with notice of his claim." Id. Quiroz argues that his pleading is sufficient to put defendants on notice of his claims. He points out that in his second amended complaint, at paragraph 8, he states that "Federal Agents Hall, Salley, Sabata, and Mitten oversaw this investigation and participated in major decisions including those related to the arrest and continued prosecution of Jose Quiroz." He further states that in several paragraphs of his complaint he "attributes specific actions to Defendants by name." Plaintiff's Response, p. 4. He is referring specifically to paragraphs 14, 19, and 20. See Second Amended Complaint, pp. 3-4. In paragraph 14, Quiroz states that "Defendants Agent French, Agent Coulson, Agent Crafton, Sgt. Robertson, and Detective Illyes had earlier participated in and reviewed surveillance of a silver Ford Expedition believed to be driven by 'Chu.'" In paragraph 19, Quiroz alleges that "Agents Hall, Salley, Sabata, and Mitten obtained a warrant to search the Quiroz home and arrest Mr. Quiroz, while knowing that they lacked probable cause." Finally, in paragraph 20, Quiroz alleges that "Defendants, Agent French, Agent Coulson, Agent Crafton,Sgt. Robertson, and Detective Illyes were also aware that Mr. Quiroz was not 'Chu,' and that there was no lawful basis to seek a warrant, but they allowed his arrest to proceed."

It is true, as defendants point out, that the majority of plaintiff's complaint is much less specific than the few paragraphs just quoted. Generally, throughout his complaint, Quiroz refers to all of the individuals he has sued collectively as "defendants" or "all defendants." However, reading Quiroz's complaint as a whole makes it clear that he is alleging that each defendant was involved in obtaining an arrest warrant for Quiroz knowing they had no probable cause, and/or participating in his arrest without probable cause, and/or conspiring to have him arrested and prosecuted in federal court without cause, and/or misleading the U.S. Attorney's office or not providing exculpatory evidence to the U.S. Attorney for the express purpose of having Quiroz prosecuted in the drug conspiracy case on which all the defendants were working. It is true that many of Quiroz's factual allegations are rather vague and generalized at this point. However, as the Court has already pointed out, "a complaint does not fail to state a claim merely because it does not set forth a complete and convincing picture of the alleged wrongdoing." American Nurses Assn. v. State of Illinois, 783 F.2d 716, 727 (7th Cir. 1986).

In this case, the Court concludes that under the notice pleading standard Quiroz has adequately pleaded that all defendants were involved in acts that allegedly deprived him of his rights. This is especially true when all of his allegations are viewed in a light most favorable to him. Therefore, Quiroz's lack of greater specificity in his complaint does not require that his complaint be dismissed on that basis.

2. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over Some of the Defendants.

Defendants also argue that Quiroz's "causes of action as they relate to defendants Sabata,French, and Coulson did not accrue in Illinois. None of them lives in Illinois, nor did any of them work in this state. . . . As their affidavits attest, Agents Sabata and Coulson live and work in Indiana. Agent French lives and works in Tennessee." Defendants' Memorandum, p. 5. However, this argument about an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction was presented while this case was still pending in the Northern District of Illinois. Now that the case has been transferred to the Northern District of Indiana, this argument is no longer a valid basis to dismiss the complaint as to these defendants (assuming it would have been anyway). Defendants Sabata and Coulson state expressly that they live and work in Indiana. As for defendant French, he states that he was "In March 2009, I was transferred by the [ATF] to the office located in Nashville, Tennessee. . . . I was not involved in any way in the investigation or prosecution of Jose Quiroz after April 18, 2009." Defendants' Memorandum, Exh. A, Affidavit of Mickey L. French. Again, this...