Farah v. Weyker, No. 17-3207 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Constitution does not imply a cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), if a federal law-enforcement officer lies, manipulates witnesses, and falsifies evidence. In this case, the allegations were that a federally deputized officer duped prosecutors and a grand jury into believing that plaintiffs were part of a multistate sex-trafficking conspiracy.
The Eighth Circuit declined to extend Bivens and remanded with respect to the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against defendant for the district court to consider the applicability of section 1983 in the first instance. In regard to the unlawful arrest claim, the court held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because her actions constituted a violation of a clearly established right. In this case, a reasonable officer would know that deliberately misleading another officer into arresting an innocent individual to protect a sham investigation was unlawful, regardless of the difficulties presented by the case.
Court Description: Stras, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judge] Civil case. In an action in which the plaintiffs alleged defendant, a deputized U.S. Marshall, duped prosecutors and a grand jury into believing plaintiffs were part of a multi-state sex-trafficking conspiracy, the Constitution does not imply a cause of action under Bivens, and their Bivens claims were properly dismissed; the matter must be remanded however, to permit the district court to find whether plaintiffs have stated claims under Section 1983; with respect to plaintiff Yassin's claims that she was unlawfully arrested because defendant told another police officer she was trying to intimidate a federal witness, defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity as defendant's actions constituted a violation of a clearly established right.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.