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

179 F.Supp.3d 251

Davino Watson, Plaintiff,

v.The United States of America, Defendant.

14–CV–6459

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed February 25, 2016

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.

MEMORANDUM, ORDER & JUDGMENT

JACK B. WEINSTEIN

, Senior United States District Judge:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction...257

II. Procedural Facts...258

III. Operative Facts...259

A. Relevant Immigration Laws...259

B. Factual Background...261

IV. Law...269

A. FTCA...269

1. Background...269

2. Exceptions...270

a) Due Care Exception...270

b) Discretionary Function Exception...271

c) Intentional Tort Exception...273

B. Elements under New York Law...273

1. False Arrest—Imprisonment...273

2. Negligence...273

C. Government liable for false arrest and false imprisonment for 27 days...274

1. May 8, 2008—June 4, 2008...274

2. June 4, 2008—November 2, 2011...274

3. November 3, 2011—December 3, 2013...275

V. Damages...276

A. Considerations...276

B. Value of Constitutional Rights Simpliciter ...277

C. Comparable Cases...278

D. Application...280

1. False Arrest...280

2. False Imprisonment...280

3. Alternative Damages Award...282

VI. Conclusion...282

I. Introduction

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)

(from a translation by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow of German writer Friedrich von Logau). 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, plaintiff Davino 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. See Birnbaum v. U.S., 588 F.2d 319, 335 (2d Cir.1978)

(“With regard to the Judge's order that the Government send a letter of apology to each plaintiff, though such letters might some day achieve monetary value as collectors' items, we do not view them as ‘money damages,’ the only form of relief provided in the Act.”).

Following are the required findings of fact and law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52

.

II. Procedural Facts

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. See Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summ. J., Apr. 29, 2015, ECF No. 18. Argument was heard on June 29, 2015. See Minute Entry, June 29, 2015, ECF No. 32.

Supplemental briefing and an evidentiary hearing were ordered on whether equitable tolling applies. See Scheduling 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. See Minute Entry, Aug. 20, 2015, ECF No. 57; Hr'g Tr., Aug. 20, 2015 (“Aug. 20 Hr'g Tr.”). The parties stipulated that all evidence presented at the hearing could be used at trial. Aug. 20 Hr'g Tr. 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 defendants Juan Estrada, Michael Ortiz, Timothy Gunther, and John Does 1–8. See Bivens 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, 2015 the 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.

On November 16, 2015, the court ruled that

[p]laintiff is entitled to damages for 27 days of false imprisonment.

...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 [of United States citizenship], unless it is plainly frivolous. In the instant 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 [some years later] ultimately validated his citizenship, and he was promptly released....

After plaintiff was released from detention, he claims that he was not promptly issued a certificate of citizenship, causing him further harm. There is no showing of liability for any delay in the issuance of citizenship documentation.... [D]amages for 27 days of false imprisonment [only is allowed].

Watson v. United States, No. 14–CV–6459, 2015 WL 7281637, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015)

.

III. Operative Facts

A. Relevant...