Watson v. United States
Decision Date | 25 February 2016 |
Docket Number | 14–CV–6459 |
Citation | 179 F.Supp.3d 251 |
Parties | Davino Watson, Plaintiff, v. The United States of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Mark A. Flessner, Laura E. Atherstone, Lisa M. Brown, Trisha M. Rich, Holland & Knight LLP, 131 S. Dearborn St., 30th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, (312) 263-3600, mark.flessner@hklaw.com, laura.atherstone @hklaw.com, lisa.brown@hklaw.com, trisha.rich@hklaw.com, Christopher G. Kelly, Robert J. Burns, Tiana M. Stephens, Holland & Knight LLP, 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, (212) 513-3200, ckelly@hklaw.com, robert.burns @hklaw.com, tiana.stephens@hklaw.com, Mark Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, 208 S. Lasalle Street, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 660-1628, mflemming@heartlandalliance.org, for Plaintiff.
Joseph Anthony Marutollo, James R. Cho, Elliot M. Schachner, United States Attorney's Office, EDNY, 271 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, (718) 254-7000, joseph.marutollo@usdoj.gov, james.cho@usdoj.gov, elliot.schachner@usdoj.gov, for Defendant.
Table of Contents
This arcane case involves a combination of critical negligent factual errors by government officials and rare reversals in the interpretation of applicable substantive citizenship law.An American citizen was wrongly arrested and held as an alien for 1,273 days while being subjected to removal proceedings as if he were a non-citizen.Yet, curiously, he is entitled to relatively negligible damages for only four weeks of his much longer detention, and none for the withholding of a certificate of citizenship after his release from incarceration.
The legal problem arises because of the inherent inefficiency in the justice system which requires time for processing of disputes.“The mills of justice grind slowly.”Vineberg v. Bissonnette,548 F.3d 50, 59(1st Cir.2008)( ).There is a clear, unmet need for counsel in immigration cases.Had an attorney been available to him at the outset, plaintiff probably promptly would have been declared a citizen and released almost immediately after he was arrested, if he were arrested at all.
The relevant facts are undisputed.On May 8, 2008, by virtue of his father's citizenship, plaintiffDavino Watson, a 23–year–old, was a United States citizen.He had an eleventh grade education.He had been sentenced by a New York State Court for a drug-related conviction.Upon his release from the New York State Prison Shock Incarceration Program, he was taken into custody by government immigration officials who believed that he was not a citizen.He was detained by the government until November 2, 2011, 1,273 days later.During this time he was subjected to deportation proceedings.These proceedings continued until January 24, 2013.It then took until November 26, 2013, for the government to give plaintiff a certificate of citizenship.He should have been released as an American citizen on or about May 10, 2008.
Although these facts on their face appear to present a relatively simple damages case, a combination of factors, including plaintiff's lack of an attorney, the government's repeated carelessness in investigating plaintiff's claim of citizenship, and intervening changes in the interpretation of American and Jamaican laws by administrative officials and a court, created a complex Federal Torts Claims Act conundrum.
After a bench trial under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government is found liable to plaintiff for falsely arresting him on May 8, 2008, and for falsely imprisoning him from that date until June 4, 2008.Plaintiff is granted an award of damages in the amount of $82,500.
Plaintiff was badly treated by government employees.He deserves a letter of apology from the United States in addition to damages.But the court is not empowered to order this courtesy.SeeBirnbaum v. U.S.,588 F.2d 319, 335(2d Cir.1978)().
Following are the required findings of fact and law.SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 52.
On October 31, 2014, plaintiff brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States for malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, and negligence.He also asserted claims for violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights against the individual government officials involved in his arrest and detention.See Compl., filed Oct. 31, 2014, ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 80–104.
On April 29, 2015, the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and for summary judgment.SeeMot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summ. J., Apr. 29, 2015, ECF No. 18.Argument was heard on June 29, 2015.SeeMinute Entry, June 29, 2015, ECF No. 32.
Supplemental briefing and an evidentiary hearing were ordered on whether equitable tolling applies.SeeScheduling Order, June 30, 2015, ECF No. 30;Hr'g Tr., June 29, 2015, at 27:9–29:12.The hearing on equitable tolling was conducted on August 20, 2015.SeeMinute Entry, Aug. 20, 2015, ECF No. 57;Hr'gTr., Aug. 20, 2015(“Aug. 20 Hr'g Tr.”).The parties stipulated that all evidence presented at the hearing could be used at trial.Aug. 20Hr'gTr. at 27:16–21.
At the hearing, the court dismissed the causes of action for violations of plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights against individual defendantsJuan Estrada, Michael Ortiz, Timothy Gunther, and John Does 1–8.SeeBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619(1971);Aug. 20 Hr'g Tr.at 13:1–14:10;Scheduling Order, Sept. 8, 2015, ECF No. 59.
On September 29, 2015the court granted in part and denied in part the government's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.Watson v. United States,133 F.Supp.3d 502, 2015 WL 5695860(E.D.N.Y.2015).Based on the holding of Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383(1994), it denied the government's motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred.Id. at 520–23, *17–19.Alternatively, the court held that plaintiff became entitled to equitable tolling until July 31, 2014, when he learned he had a right to sue the United States.Id. at 522–24, *19–20.Granted was the government's motion to dismiss plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim, finding it barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).Id. at 523–25, *20–21.
Plaintiff's remaining claims—false arrest, false imprisonment and negligence—were tried in a bifurcated bench trial.Following the conclusion of the liability portion of the trial, a tentative ruling of limited liability was issued and the damages phase went forward.Mem. & Order, Oct. 2, 2015, ECF No. 82.
It was held that the government is liable to plaintiff(i) for falsely arresting, and then imprisoning him from May 8, 2008 until November 2, 2011, and (ii) for negligence, during this same period of time, in refusing to recognize him as a citizen of the United States.Id.A trial to determine damages to plaintiff was ordered.
Watson v. United States,No. 14–CV–6459, 2015 WL 7281637, at *1(E.D.N.Y.Nov. 16, 2015).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. United States
...interviewed Watson "at New York's Downstate Correctional Facility where plaintiff was incarcerated." Watson v. United States , 179 F.Supp.3d 251, 262 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) [hereinafter Watson IV ]. Watson told Officer Andren that he was a U.S. citizen and provided the names and phone number of hi......
-
Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.
... ... 3:09-CV-1499 (CSH) United States District Court, D. Connecticut. Signed April 5, 2016 179 F.Supp.3d 226 Douglas J. Varga, ... ...
-
United States v. Abrams
...sharp increase in removal proceedings and importance of effective assistance of counsel in such proceedings. See Watson v. United States , 179 F.Supp.3d 251, 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("There is a clear, unmet need for counsel in immigration cases. Had an attorney been available to him at the out......
-
Ayala v. United States
...Bernardo v. United States , No. CIV.A.3:02-CV-0974-N, 2004 WL 741287, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2004). But see Watson v. United States , 179 F. Supp. 3d 251, 271–73 (E.D.N.Y. 2016), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds , 865 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. ...