Mendia v. Garcia, No. 16-15742 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a naturalized U.S. citizen, filed suit against defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), after agents erroneously lodged an immigration detainer against him while he was detained in county jail. After the notice of appeal on the Bivens ruling was filed, however, the district court sanctioned plaintiff for egregious misconduct during that discovery and ultimately dismissed his FTCA claims. Defendants then filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit to consider applying the sanction to plaintiff's remaining claims under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(b). The panel held that a limited remand was permissible without first moving in the district court under FRCP 62.1 for a targeted "indicative ruling" and, in this case, a limited remand was appropriate in order for the government to move for dismissal of the remaining claims.
Court Description: Civil Procedure The panel remanded the case to the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(b) for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to make a final ruling on whether to dismiss plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff, a United States citizen, sued Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Department of Homeland Security under Bivens and the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), after agents erroneously lodged an immigration detainer against him while he was detained in county jail. The district court found that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s Bivens claims, and this interlocutory appeal followed. After the notice of appeal on the Bivens ruling was filed, however, the district court sanctioned plaintiff for egregious misconduct during discovery and MENDIA V. GARCIA 3 ultimately dismissed his claims brought pursuant to the FTCA. Defendants then moved in this court for a limited remand pursuant to FRAP 12.1(b) to allow the district court to consider applying the sanction to plaintiff’s remaining claims. The panel held that a limited remand was permissible pursuant to FRAP 12.1 even though defendants had never asked the district court for a targeted indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. The panel held that a FRCP 62.1 motion was not a prerequisite for a limited remand under FRAP 12.1(b) where the district court has already indicated it would grant a motion for the requested relief. The panel stated that it was satisfied that the district court made its intentions sufficiently clear in its order dismissing plaintiff’s FTCA claim and the panel treated that order as an indicative ruling for the purposes of applying FRAP 12.1.
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.