Watson v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–CV–6459.,14–CV–6459. |
| Citation | 133 F.Supp.3d 502 |
| Parties | Davino WATSON, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Christopher G. Kelly, Robert J. Burns, Holland & Knight LLP, Tiana M. Stephens, New York, NY, Mark Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, Laura E. Atherstone, Lisa M. Brown, Mark A. Flessner, Trisha M. Rich, Holland & Knight LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Joseph Anthony Marutollo, Elliot M. Schachner, James R. Cho, United States Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant.
JACK B. WEINSTEIN
, Senior District Judge:
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction
506
II.
Procedural History
506
III.
Facts
507
A.
Basis for Citizenship
507
B.
Criminal Conviction: September 18, 2007
507
C.
Immigration Detainer Issued: April 7, 2008
508
D.
ICE Issues Notice to Appear: April 10, 2008
508
E.
End of New York State Custody and Transfer to ICE Custody: May 8, 2008
508
F.
Transfer to Buffalo Federal Detention Facility: June 23, 2008
509
G.
Homeland Security Directives on Claims of United States Citizenship
509
1.
May 23, 2008 Directive
509
2.
July 18, 2008 Directive
510
3.
November 6, 2008 Directive
510
4.
November 19, 2009 Directive
510
H.
Removal Proceedings
511
I.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
517
J.
Immigration and Customs Recommends Immediate Release
518
K.
Plaintiff Released from ICE Custody: November 2, 2011
519
L.
Plaintiff's Removal Proceedings Terminated: January 24, 2013
519
M.
Depression and Drug Use
520
N.
Continued Litigation of Citizenship
520
IV.
Legal Standards of Review
520
A.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
520
B.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
520
C.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
521
V.
Statute of Limitations Does Not Bar Plaintiff's FTCA Claims
521
A.
Heck v. Humphrey
521
B.
Equitable Tolling of Accrual Date
522
VI.
Plaintiff's Malicious Prosecution Claim Is Barred By 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)
523
A.
Malicious Prosecution
524
B.
False Imprisonment
524
VII.
Plaintiff's Negligence Claim Has Private Analogue
525
VIII.
Summary Judgment Is Not Appropriate
526
IX.
Conclusion
527
Plaintiff has a basis for contending that, for lack of an attorney, and because of the negligent failure of the United States to protect him when he rightly claimed United States citizenship, he, a young citizen, son of a citizen, was unjustly incarcerated for years. He has made out a prima facie case under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is also denied.
Were it not for the pro bono attorney appointed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, plaintiff probably would have been declared a non-citizen and deported. This case underlines the acute need for attorneys to represent immigrants and others engaged in disputes with United States immigration officials. See, e.g., New York Immigrant Representation Study Report, Accessing Justice: The Availability and Adequacy of Counsel in Immigration Proceedings (Pt. 1), 33 Cardozo L.Rev. 357 (Dec.2011)
().
Davino Watson, a 23 year old with an eleventh-grade education in May of 2008, had just successfully completed New York's "Shock Incarceration Program" after a conviction for the attempted sale of cocaine. Born in Jamaica, he had become a United States citizen six years before, in 2002. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained him for almost two and a half years in the mistaken belief that he was not a citizen. During this period, ICE transferred plaintiff among facilities in New York, Louisiana, and Alabama. It subjected him to continuous removal proceedings.
When ICE finally realized its mistake in labeling plaintiff a non-citizen, it released him. But it continued to subject him to removal proceedings. It also denied plaintiff a Certificate of Citizenship for another two years after his release.
Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.
("FTCA"), plaintiff alleges false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and negligence against the United States. The government moves to dismiss and for summary judgment. See Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56. The government's motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 31, 2014. 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, for failure to state a claim, and for summary judgment. See Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed Apr. 29, 2015 (ECF No. 18). Argument was heard on June 29, 2015. See Minute Entry, June 29, 2015 (ECF No. 32). A supplemental briefing and an evidentiary hearing was 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 complaint's causes of action claiming 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 Federal 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; Order, Sept. 8, 2015 (ECF No. 59). Claims against the United States remained.
Plaintiff was born on November 17, 1984 to two unmarried parents in Kingston, Jamaica. Pl.'s Answer to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts in Support of Def.'s Mot. for Summary Judgment, filed June 6, 2015 (ECF No. 27) ("Pl.'s Answer to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)"), at 1–2. His father was not originally listed on his birth registration form. Id. at 2.
On April 19, 1991, plaintiff's biological father registered his name, as "father," on plaintiff's birth registration form. Id. at 2–3.
On March 17, 1998, almost 14 years after plaintiff's birth, his father sought a visa for plaintiff to travel to the United States. He submitted an affidavit in support of section 312A of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") to Immigration and Naturalization Service. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff gained the status of a lawful permanent resident of the United States on August 4, 1998, at the age of thirteen. Id.
On September 17, 2002, plaintiff's father became a naturalized United States citizen while he had custody of plaintiff. Id. at 2; Compl. at Ex. E (ECF No. 1–1). Plaintiff, who had been lawfully admitted to the United States and who was then a minor in the custody of his father, simultaneously automatically became a citizen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a) (2002)
(), although the matter would be litigated until early 2013—more than a decade later. Compl. at Ex. A (ECF No. 1–1) ("Plaintiff's Certificate of Citizenship"); see infra Part III.N. Plaintiff did not receive a Certificate of Citizenship until November 26, 2013. Compl. at Ex. A (ECF No. 1–1).
On September 18, 2007, plaintiff was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance (cocaine) in New York Supreme Court. Pl's Answer to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3), at 4. He was sentenced to forty-two months incarceration. Id. This term was reduced after he was placed in New York State's "Shock Incarceration Program," a military-based program at the Lakeview Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility in Brocton, New York, for young, nonviolent offenders. Aug. 20 Hr'g Tr. at 22:2–16; Pl's Answer to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) at Ex. B (ECF No. 27–2) ("Shock Incarceration Program Completion Certificate"); Decl. of Joseph A. Marutollo, dated Aug. 10, 2015, at Ex. B (ECF No. 50–2) ("Deposition of Plaintiff"), at 22:2–5. Plaintiff successfully completed the eight-month Program. See Shock Incarceration Program Completion Certificate. He testified that the program had a significant positive impact on his life, providing physical and mental training, and enabling him to become a better person. Aug. 20 Hr'g Tr. at 22:19–23:1.
On October 9, 2007, shortly after plaintiff entered state custody, ICE interviewed plaintiff at the New York Downstate Correctional Facility located at Castle Point. Compl. at Ex. B (ECF No. 1–1) ("Record of Deportable Alien"). Plaintiff then possessed neither a United States passport nor a birth certificate. Id. He provided the interviewing officer with his parents' telephone number to confirm his citizenship status. Id.
Officer Juan Estrada conducted an investigation of plaintiff's citizenship status. He found no records of plaintiff's father's naturalization, even though it is now conceded that plaintiff's father was naturalized on September 17, 2002. On April 7, 2008, Officer Estrada concluded in his investigative report:
The subject is a national and citizen of Jamaica and a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United States. His parents are nationals and citizens of Jamaica who have not naturalized. No issue of derivation applies. Subject entered the United States on 08/04/1998 as a class F2–2 Immigrant.
Compl. at Ex. D (ECF No. 1–1) ("Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien") (emphasis added).
On April 7, 2008, while plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. United States
...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 th......
-
Anson v. United States
...analogue requirement does not mandate the existence of liability for the exact same act by a private actor." Watson v. United States , 133 F.Supp.3d 502, 525 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). Instead, a court must " ‘look further afield’ for a private analogue when the government in fact is the only entity ......
-
D.J.C.V. v. United States
... ... Fed.Appx. 451, 454 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (quoting ... Myers & Myers, 527 F.2d at 1262) (further ... quotation omitted). Unlike the DFE, then, the DCE ... “applies to situations where a statute or regulation ... requires an action to be taken.” Watson v ... United States, 179 F.Supp. 3D 251, 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ... (emphasis in original), aff'd in part, rev'd in ... part, 865 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2017) ... c ... Misrepresentation exception ... The ... FTCA also ... ...
-
Watson v. United States
...Watson has been a U.S. citizen since 2002—the government had detained Watson for 1,273 days. Watson v. United States , 133 F.Supp.3d 502, 518 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) [hereinafter Watson I ]. I do not share the majority's view that the government's mistake "resulted in part from the fact that Watson......