Rivera v. Samilo
Decision Date | 31 March 2019 |
Docket Number | 16-cv-1105 (DLI) |
Citation | 370 F.Supp.3d 362 |
Parties | Jouhan RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. DEA Special Agent David T. SAMILO, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Hector Benjamin Perez, H. Benjamin Perez & Associates, P.C., Tamara M. Harris, The Law Office of Tamara M. Harris, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Sean P. Greene, United States Attorney's Office, EDNY, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant.
DORA L. IRIZARRY, Chief United States District JudgeOn March 4, 2016, Plaintiff Jouhan Rivera ("Plaintiff") initiated this action against Defendant Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent David T. Samilo ("Samilo") and others for alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights in connection with his arrest during a traffic stop in 2013. On March 30, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (the "March 30, 2018 Order"). (Docket Entry No. 58 ). The Court dismissed all claims against all Defendants except Plaintiff's damages claim against Samilo for injuries allegedly sustained when Samilo allegedly used excessive force when handcuffing Plaintiff during his arrest.
On July 12, 2018, the Court held a pretrial conference. At the conference, the Court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing to address the application of the intervening case from the United States Supreme Court captioned Ziglar v. Abbasi , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017). This opinion addresses that supplemental briefing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim cannot stand under Ziglar , and this action is dismissed.
On the evening of October 22, 2013, Samilo and other federal law enforcement officers were surveilling Plaintiff as part of a narcotics investigation.1 While following a vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger, the officers initiated a traffic stop. Plaintiff and the driver were searched for weapons. A search of the vehicle uncovered a duffel bag containing approximately three kilograms of cocaine in the spare tire well of the trunk. Plaintiff was placed under arrest. Plaintiff alleges that he told the arresting officers, including Samilo, that he had a hand injury, and that the handcuffs were too tight and aggravating that injury. Plaintiff alleges that Samilo squeezed the cuffs even tighter, would not let him retrieve a hand brace from the car, and that he sought medical assistance as a result of these injuries.
On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Samilo and six other federal officers alleging violations of Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), the seminal case in which the Supreme Court found an implied right of action for money damages against federal officers for certain violations of a plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Docket Entry No. 1.)
On April 21, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. (Docket Entry No. 39.) On March 30, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion. (Docket Entry No. 58.) The only claim that survived defendants' motion is Plaintiff's claim for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against Samilo for allegedly using excessive force in handcuffing Plaintiff.
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017), which clarified the analysis to be applied by the lower courts when deciding whether to find an "implied right of action" under Bivens .
On July 12, 2018, the Court held a pretrial conference. The Court, sua sponte , directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing to address the impact of Ziglar on Plaintiff's excessive force claim. The supplemental briefing was completed on August 23, 2018. (See , Samilo Br., Docket Entry No. 71 ; Rivera Br., Docket Entry No. 73 ; Samilo Rep., Docket Entry No. 75.)
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Ziglar and separation of powers principles counsel against finding an implied right of action on the facts of this case. Plaintiff's sole remaining claim is dismissed.
For a plaintiff to enforce his constitutional rights he must have a cause of action. That is, there must be a statute passed by Congress or a judicially implied claim for relief. Here, Plaintiff cannot point to any statute that would allow him to prosecute this action. The only question is whether there is a judicially implied claim for relief.
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), the Supreme Court recognized "an implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional rights." McGowan v. United States , 825 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko , 534 U.S. 61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001) ). The Bivens Court implied a private right of action under the Fourth Amendment for an unreasonable search and seizure claim against FBI agents for handcuffing a man in his own home without a warrant. Bivens , 403 U.S. at 389, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999. Since then, the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens claims in only two other circumstances: (1) under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause for gender discrimination against a congressman for firing his female secretary, Davis v. Passman , 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), and (2) under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment against prison officials for failure to treat an inmate's asthma
which led to his death, Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980).
Malesko , 534 U.S. at 75, 122 S.Ct. 515 (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted).
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's retreat, lower courts have relied on Bivens as a blueprint for implying causes of action. Although acknowledging that the judicial damage remedy in Bivens itself is "extraordinary" and should "rarely if ever be applied in ‘new contexts,’ " Arar v. Ashcroft , 585 F.3d 559, 571 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Malesko , 534 U.S. at 69, 122 S.Ct. 515 ), lower courts have recognized implied rights of action premised on constitutional rights other than the three identified by the Supreme Court.
Recently, however, the Supreme Court has re-emphasized that courts should not imply rights and remedies as a matter of course, "no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute [or constitutional provision]." Ziglar , 137 S.Ct. at 1856 (quoting Alexander v. Sandoval , 532 U.S. 275, 286-87, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) ). "Given the notable change in the [Supreme] Court's approach to recognizing implied causes of action ... the Court has made clear that expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity." Id. at 1857 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 675, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).
Ziglar also made it clear that the only recognized implied rights of action are the narrow situations presented in Bivens, Davis , and Carlson . Practically speaking, this means that, post- Ziglar , even where a Court of Appeals had previously found a Bivens remedy, that court or a district court must reconsider whether one is available. See , 137 S.Ct. at 1865 ( ); See also , Vanderklok v. United States , 868 F.3d 189, 199-200 (3d Cir. 2017) ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Diaz v. Mercurio
...3d 573, 614 (M.D.N.C. 2019) (collecting cases). One district court has, for instance, noted disagreement between Rivera v. Samilo , 370 F. Supp. 3d 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2019), decided by a court in the Eastern District of New York, which concluded that the availability of an FTCA remedy bars a Biv......
-
Oliveras v. Basile
...order); see also Silva v. Canarozzi , No. 18 Civ. 1771 (MPS), 2019 WL 1596346, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 15, 2019) ; Rivera v. Samilo , 370 F. Supp. 3d 362, 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). And although the Second Circuit has as of yet pointedly avoided answering whether Ziglar abrogates prior precedents fr......
-
Rivera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
...order); see also Silva v. Canarozzi, No. 18 Civ. 1771 (MPS), 2019 WL 1596346, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 15, 2019); Rivera v. Samilo, 370 F. Supp. 3d 362, 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Courts are required to follow a "rigorous two-step inquiry ... to determine whether to imply a Bivens cause of action in ......
-
Turner v. Dellapia
...basis of qualified immunity because it was undisputed that Anticev did not enter or search Bonilla's apartment.").9 Rivera v. Samilo, 370 F. Supp. 3d 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2019), relied on by the Federal Defendants in their discussion of the differences between this case and Bivens, is distinguisha......