Watson v. United States, 14-CV-6459

• Decision Date: 16 November 2015
• Docket Number: 14-CV-6459
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Parties: DAVINO WATSON, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

DAVINO WATSON, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

14-CV-6459

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

November 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior United States District Judge:

Plaintiff sues under the Federal Tort Claims Act for false arrest and imprisonment. 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. His well-founded claims of citizenship arising from his father's naturalization were negligently denied by immigration authorities who kept him in detention for more than three years.

Following completion of a bench trial on liability pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, a trial on damages will take place commencing on January 13, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10-B South. The parties shall furnish lists of witnesses with summaries of their proposed testimony, pre-marked exhibits, and proposed findings of fact and law on damages before the trial starts. See Mem. & Order, Oct. 2, 2015, ECF No. 82, incorporated as part of this order.

Based on the liability phase of the trial, proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law submitted by the parties, plaintiff is entitled to damages for 27 days of false imprisonment. An extensive integrated memorandum setting forth the court's complete findings of fact and law on liability and damages will be issued following the trial of damages.

The rule of law is: a person claiming United States citizenship is entitled to a prompt and full investigation by the government of that claim, unless it is plainly frivolous. In the instant

Page 2

case, a negligent failure to properly investigate plaintiff's claim of citizenship led to his initial detention by immigration officials. Repeated and routine approval of the initial investigation by public officials without checking the facts was grossly negligent. It led to plaintiff's wrongful detention for 27 days.

Plaintiff was a young person who had no lawyer, was ill-educated, and was forced by circumstances to rely on the government to validate his claim. Those charged with investigating plaintiff's claim to United States citizenship stumbled badly. Had they not been negligent, plaintiff would not have been incarcerated.

The plaintiff was held beyond 27 days for an additional 1,246 days, but a change in the prevailing law made reasonable the government's conclusion - which was made 27 days after plaintiff's initial detention - that plaintiff was not a citizen. See Matter of Hines, 24 I. & N. Dec. 544 (BIA 2008). Another change in the law...