Rios v. Jenkins, No. 3:2018cv00082 - Document 44 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 7/15/19. (hnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rios v. Jenkins Doc. 44 CLERK' S OFFICE U.s.DISX (7œ RT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN Tlv UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN D ISTM CT OF V IR GIN IA CH ARLOU ESV ILLE DIV ISION JUL 15 2219 JULI DUDLEY LERK DY: PUW FM N CISCO GUM DADO RIOS,on behalf ofhim selfand allothers sim ilarly situated, LR CivilA ction No.3:18CV00082 M EM ORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge SCOTT . 1E S,SheriffofCulpeperCounty, Virginia,in hisindividualcapacity, . D efendant. Francisco Guardado Rios fled this action against Scott Jenkins, Sheriff of Culpeper Cotmty,Virginia,onbehalfofhimselfandotherssimilarly situated,pursuantto42U.S.C.j1983. RiosallegesthatJenkins'policy ofholding individualsin custody forupto 48additionalhotlrsat therequestoftheImmigration andCustomsEnforcement($$ICE'')division oftheDepnrtmentof HomelmldSecurity(çiDHS'')violatedtheFourthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStates Constimtion. The case ispresently before the courton the defendant'sm otion to dism iss. For the reasons setforth below,theplaintiffs claimstmder j 1983 willbe dismissed pursuantto FederalRule of CivilProcedure 12(b)(6). The courtwilldecline to exercise supplemental jurisdictionovertheremainingclaim offalseimprisonmentinviolationofVirginialaw. Statutoa and LeealB ackeround The court begins w ith the relevant statm ory and legal backgrotm d, which provides a fm meworkfortmderstanding the factsalleged in thecomplaint. Thefederalgovemmenthasççbroad,tmdoubtedpoweroverthesubjectofimmigration and thestatusofaliens.'' Arizonav.UnitedStates,567U.S.387,394(2012);seealsoU.S.Const.art. Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 1 of 21 Pageid#: 260 Dockets.Justia.com 1,j8,c1.4 (granting CongressthepowertoSlestablish antmiform RuleofNatuzalization'). In 1952,CongressenactedtheImmigrationandNationalityAct(ççlNA''),66Stat.163,asnmended,8 U.S.C.j 1101,x!seq. Gç-fhatstatute established a çcomprehensive federalstam tory schem e for regulation ofimm igration andnaturalization'and setSthetermsmldconditionsofadmissiontothe cotmtry and the subsequenttreatm entofalienslawfullyin thecotmtry.''' ChnmberofCom merce oftheUnited Statesv.W hitina,563U.S.582,587 (2011)(quotingDe Canasv.Bica,424U.S. 351,353,359(1976)). CongresshasempoweredtheSecretaryofDH Sto enforcetheINA. Nielsen v.Preap,139 S.Ct.954,959 n.2 (2019). Tllis includes authority to (sarrestand hold an alien Spending a decision on whetherthealien isto beremoved from theUzlited States.''' J. 1 . J.at959 (quoting 8 U.S.C.j 1226(a)). Although removalproceedings are civilin nature,rather than criminal, Immiration& Naturalization Serv.v.Lopez-M endoza,468U.S.1032,1038(1984),theSupreme Court has recognized that çtldletention dudng removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissiblepartofthatprocessy''Demorev.Hyurm JoonIGm,538U.S.510,531(2003);seealso Arizona,567 U.S.at407 (:W sageneralnzle,itisnotacrimeforaremovablealien to remain presentin theUnited States....Thefederalstatm ory structureinstnzctswhen itisappropriateto arrestan alien during the rem ovalprocess. For exnmple,the Attom ey General can exercise discretionto issue aw arrantforan alien'sarrestand detention pending a decision on whetherthe alienistoberemovedfrom theUnitedStates.'')(citationsomitted). O ecause the Constitution grants Congress plenary authozity over im m igration,state and local1aw enforcem ent officers m ay participate in the enforcem ent of federal im m igration law s only in çspecifc,lim ited circllm stances'authorized by Conp ess.'' Santosv.Frederick Ctv.Bd. ofComm'rs,725F.3d451,463(4thCir.2013)(quotingArizona,567U.S.at410). Forinstnnce, 2 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 2 of 21 Pageid#: 261 çslljocal law enforcement oflkers may assist in federalimmigration efforts under 8 U.S.C. j1357(g)(1),''which authorizesICE toenterintowrittenagreementswith local1aw enforcement agenciesthatallow localoffkerstoperform thefnnctionsoffederalimmigration officers. Lp.aat 463.-64;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Sosa-carabantes,561F.3d256,257(4thCir.2009)(Gt-f' he287(g) Progrnm permits ICE to deputize local law ee orcem ent ofdcers to perform im migration enforcementactivitiesptlrsuantto awritten agreement''l.l çtEven in the absence ofawritten agreem ent'' local law enforcem ent offcers m ay S'scooperate''' with federal im migration enforcementefforts ptlrsuantto j 1357(g)(10). Santos,725 F.3d at 464 (quoting 8 U.S.C. j 1357(g)(10)(B)). Becausethepartiesfocusheavily on tMsprovision ofthe INA,the court quotesitin fu11: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreem enttmderthissubsection in orderforan officeroremployee ofaStateorpoliticalsubdivision ofaState- (A) to communicate with the Attom ey General regarding the imm igration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States;or (B) otherwise cooperate with the Attom ey General in the identifkation,ajprehension,detention,orremovalofaliensnot lawfully presentin theUnited States. 8U.S.C.j 1357(g)(10). In Adzona v.United States,the Supreme Courtrecognized thatGlgtqhere may be some nmbiguity asto whatconstitutescooperation''lmderthisprovision oftheINA. 567 U .S.at410. TheCourtultim atelyconcludedthatiGno coherenttmderstandingoftheterm wouldincorporatethe llnilateraldecision of state oY cersto arrestan alien for being removable absent any request, approval,or other instruction from the Federal Governm ent.'' 1d. tç-l-hus,Adzona v.Urlited !Theterm &$ 287(g)''referstothesectionoftheINA thatauthorizesthese'agreements. CitvofE1Cenizov. Texas.890F.3d164,177n.5(5thCir.2018). 3 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 3 of 21 Pageid#: 262 StatesmakesclearthatunderSection 1357(g)(10)locallaw elzforcementoY cerscannotarrest aliensforcivilimm igration violationsabsent,atam inimllm ,direction orauthorization by federal ofscials.'' Santos,725 F.3d at466. Gsonew ay in wllich 1CE requestscooperation ofstateox cialswithoutwritten agreements is by issuing a Form 1-247 im migration detainer.'' Abric v.M etro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty.,333 F.Supp.3d 783,787 (M .D.Tenn.2018);see also Lopez-Lopezv.Cty.of Allecan,321F.Supp.3d 794,797 (W .D.Mich.2018)(explainingthatthe issuanceofaForm 1-247 immigration detainer is lGgojne method in which the federal government requests the cooperation ofstate authorities'). Such detainersttservelqto advise another1aw enfbrcement agencythatEICE)seekscustodyofanalienpresentlyinthecustodyofthatagency,forthepurpose ofarrestingandremovingthealien.'' 8C.F.R.j287.7($. Thedetainersçtasktwothingsofthe stateorlocalagency:thatitnotifyICE atleast48 hoursbeforearemovablealien isreleased from custody;and thatitdetain aremovable alien forup to 48 hotlrspastthetim ethatthe alien would haveothem isebeen released to allow ICE to apprehend theindividual.'' City ofPhiladelplzia v. Attorney Gen.ofthe United States,916 F.3d 276,281 (3d Cir.2019);see also 8 C.F.R. j287.7($,(d). AsofApril2,2017,ICE policy requiresthatim migration detainersbeaccompnnied by a signed adm irlistrativewarrantattestingto probablecauseofremovability from the United States. City ofPhiladelphia,916 F.3d at281;Lopez-Lopez,321F.Supp.3d at797. SW dm inistative w arrants differ significantly from w arrants in crim inal cases in that they are not issued by a detached and neutralm agistrate.'' Lopez-Lopez,321F.Supp.3d at799. Instead,GGthewarrants are executed by federalofficerswho have received training in the entbrcementofim migration law.'' Arizona,567 U.S.at408 (citing 8 C.F.R.jj 241.209,287.5(e)(3)). The useofsuch 4 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 4 of 21 Pageid#: 263 warrantshaslongbeenauthorizedbystatute. See8U.S.C.j1226(a)(çf0nawarrantissuedbythe Attonzey General,analien m aybeazrested and detainedpendingadecision onwhetherthealien is toberemovedfrom theUnitedStates.');seealsoAbelv.UrlitedStates,362U.S.217,234(1960) (noting that there is çloverwhelming historical legislative recognition of the propriety of administrativenrrestfordeportablealiens''). FactualBackqround Againstthisbackdrop,thecourtturnsto thefacm alallegationsintlliscase,whicharetaken from thecomplaintand the attached exhibits. SeeGoinesv.Valley Cmty.Servs.Bd.,822 F.3d 159,166(4th Cir.2016)(notingthatthecourtmayconsiderexhibitstoacomplaintwhenrulingon amotiontodismiss). On August13,2017,Rioswasarrested fortwom isdem eanoroffenseslmderVirginialaw: ddvingwithoutalicenseandcontributingtothedelinquencyofaminor. Compl.!27,DH.NO.1. HewascommittedtothecustodyoftheCulpeperCountyJail(the$1Jai1''),wllich ismanaged and supervisedbyJenkins. Ld.,s!! 12,27. Thatsam e day,the Jailreceived two form sfrom ICE:a DHS Fonn 1-247A Imm igration Detainer-NoticeofAction (CtICE detainer'')andaDHS Form 1-200W arrantforArrestofAlien (Gsadmirlistrativewarranfl. ThelCE detainerindicatedthatDHShaddetenninedthattherewas probable cause tc)believe thatRios wms a removable alien. Compl.Ex.A,Dk4.No.1-2. It requestedthattheJailçtlnjotifyDHS asearlyaspracticable(atleast48hottrs,ifpossible)before thealienisreleasedfrom EtheJail's)custody-'' Id. The1CE detaineralsorequestedthattheJail çsrmlaintaincustodyofthealienforaperiodNOTTO EXCEED 48HOURSbeyondthetimewhen he/shewould othem ise have been released 9om gthe Jail's)custody to allow DHS to assllme custody.'' J. IJ.S(emphasisinoriginal). TheICE detainerindicatedthatliltqhealienmustbeserved 5 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 5 of 21 Pageid#: 264 withacopyofthisform forthedetainertotakeeffect.'' Llls Theform wassignedbyImmigration OfscerB.M ednick. Ld=. The accompanying administrative warrant was directed to the attention of Gûlalny imm ip ation officer authorized ptlrsuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Imm igration and Nationality Actand rthe associated regulations)to serve warrants of arrestfor immiration violations.'' Compl.Ex.B,Dkt.No.1-2. TheICE wan'antindicated thatan im migration oftk er hadçtdetenninedthatthereisprobablecausetobelievethat(Riosjisremovablefrom theUnited States.'' J#z. ItElcommanded''thatRios be tçarrestgedqand takelnq into custody forremoval proceedings tmder the Immigration and Nationality Act'' 1( J. The wan'antwas signed by Immigration OfficerC.W amsley. J.1. L DeputyJ.Glascock signedbothICE form son behalfoftheJail. Thedeputyindicatedthat the form swere served on Rioson August13,2017. See Com pl.Exs.A & B. Hotlrsafterhisarreston statecharges,Riosappeared before amagistrate,who setbond at $1,000.00. Compl.!34. Riosallegesthatwhen an lmidentifed Gsfriend''nrrivedtopostbond, the magistrate indicated thatthe existing ICE detainerwould preventRiosfrom being released. 1d.!35. Basedonthemagistrate'srepresentations,theplaintiY sfriend declinedtopostbond. Id = Rioswasinitially scheduled togo totrialon thestatechargeson August22,2017. J#. !36. 'rhetrialwascontinuedtmtilNovember7,2017. J.I. lkiosremainedinthecustodyofthe Jailwhile awaitingtdal. Id. Rioswasconvicted ofcontributingto thedelinquency ofam inor,in violation ofVirginia Code j 18.2-371. Id.! 37. Hewassentencedto30 daysinjail,with 20 dayssuspended. Id. 6 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 6 of 21 Pageid#: 265 Because Itios had already been in custody more than 10 days,the state court Slordered his immediatereleasefortirfleservedtmderVa.Codej53.1-187.'' Id. Based on the ICE detainer and the accom panying warrant,Rios washeld atthe Jailfor ççapproxim ately two additionaldays.'' Id. On November 9,2017,çsltios wastransferred to the custodyofICE''oniçcivilimmipationcharges.'' Id.!!38,40. Rios alleges that during fiscal years 2017 and 2018,Jenkins held nearly one htmdred individualsinjailpasttheirrelease dates,Gçbased solely on thepurported authority ofan ICE detainer and/or Form 1-200 (administrative warrmltq.'' Id.! 7. Dudng the time period in question,JenkinsdidnothaveaformalcooperationagieementwithICE. JZ at3n.1. OnApril 24,2018,JenkinsandICE enteredintoawrittenagreementplzrsuanttoj287(g)oftheINA . 1IJ. ln the instantaction,RiosclaimsthatJenkins'policy and practice ofholding individuals solely on the basis ofan 1CE detainerand adm inistrative warrantGlresulted in a violation ofthe civilrightsof(Rios)anda1lotherssimiladysituated,astheywereheldinElenkins'qcustodywhen they othem iseshould have been released.'' Id.! 7. In CotmtIofthe complaint,Riosseeks monetaryrelieftmder42U.S.C.j1983basedonanallegedviolationoftheDueProcessClauseof theFourteenth Amendment. In Cotmtl1,Iliosseeksmonetaryrelieftmderj 1983 based on an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendm ent. In Count 111, Rios asserts a claim of false imprisonmentin violation ofV irginialaw. ProceduralHistoa Riosfiledtheinstantaction againstJenkinson September10,2018. Jenkinshasm oved to dismissthecomplainttmderRule 12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedtlre. TheUnited Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 7 of 21 Pageid#: 266 Stateshasfiled astatementofinterestin supportofthedefendant'smotion. Them otion hasbeen f'ullybrlefedandarguedandisnow ripefordisposition.z standard ofR eview Rule 12(b)(6)permitsaparty to movefordismissalofa complaintforfailureto statea claim upon which reliefcan begranted. W hen deciding am otion to dism isstmdertM srule,the courtm ustacceptastruea11well-pleadedallegationsanddraw a11reasonablefacmalinferencesin theplaintiffsfavor. Edckson v.Pardus,551U.S.89,94 (2007). çGW hileacomplaintattacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)motion to dismiss does notneed detailed facmalallegations,a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grotmds of ilis entitlem ent to relief requires more than labels and conclusions,and aformulaicrecitation oftheelem entsofacauseofaction willnotdo.'' BellAtl. Cop.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007)(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted). To survivedism issal,ççacomplaintmustcontain suftk ientfactualm atter,accepted astnze,to çstatea claim forreliefthatisplausible on its face.''' Ashcroftv.lnbal,556 U.S.662,678 (2009) (quotingTwomblv,550U.S.at570). çW lthoughamotionpursuanttoRule 12(b)(6)invitesaninquiryintothelegalsux ciency ofthe complaint,notan analysis ofpotentialdefenses to the claims setforth therein,dismissal nevertheless is appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritodousaffirmativedefense.'' Brooksv.CityofW inston-salem,85F.3d 178,181(4th Cir. 1996). One such defense isqualised immtmity. Brocldngton v.Boykins,637 F.3d 503,506 (4thCir.2011)(citingJenkinsv.Medford,119F.3d 1156,1159(4thCir.1997)(enbancll. 2OnAprill7,2019,theplaintiffmovedforleaveto submitsupplementalauthority in supportofhisbriefin opposition. ' I'hecourtwillgranttheplaintiff'smotion. 8 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 8 of 21 Pageid#: 267 D iscussion 1. Claim sunderî 1983 Thecourtwillfirstaddresstheplaintic sclaimslmder42U.S.C.j 1983. tssection 1983 is not an independent source of substantive rights,but simply a vehicle for vindicating preexistingconstimtionalandstatutoryrights.'' Safarv.Tingle,859F.3d241,243(4thCir.2017) (citingGrahnm v.Cozmor,490U.S.386,393-94 (1989:. Thestatuteimposescivilliabilityon any person who,acting undercolorofstatelaw,deprivesanotherperson ofrightsand privileges se' ctlredby the Constitution and lawsoftheUnited States. 42U.S.C.j 1983. Accordingly,in any actiontmderj 1983,thecourtmustbeginitsanalysisbyidentifyingthepreciseconstimtional orstatutoryviolationthatthedefendantallegedly committed. SeeSafar,859F.3d at245 ($The frststepinanysuchclaim istopinpointthespecifcrightthathasbeeninfringed.'')(citingBaker v.M ccollan,443U.S.137,140(1979:. In this case,Rios contends thatllis continued detention for48 hours based on the ICE detainer and adm il strative warrant breached two constimtional provisions: the Fourth Am endment and the Fourteenth Am endm ent's Due Process Clause. M ore specifically,Rios contends that his continued detention constituted an unreasonable seizure and violated his substantivedueprocessrights. SeePl.'sBr.in Opp'n 20-25,Dltt.No.14.3 Jenkins has moved to dismissthe j 1983 claims on multiple grounds. Among other arguments,the defendantcontendsthattheplaintiffhasno f' reestanding due processclaim based on lliscontinued detention,thatthe plaintiY scontinued detention attherequestofICE did not 3Riosinitiallyappearedtoassertthatthedefendantviolatedhisrighttoproceduraldueprocess. Inresponse tosuchclaim,thedefendantarguedthattheplaintifffailedtoallepeacognizableviolationofhisproceduraldue processrightsandthatsuchclaim isbarredbythedoctrineofquallfedimmunity. Inhisbriefinoyposition,the plaintiffdidnotcontestthedefendant'sargumentsastotheviabilityofanyyroceduraldueprocessclalm. Instead, theplaintiffasserted thatthedefendantviolatedhissubstantivedueprocessnghts. SeePl.'sBr.in Opp'n 24-25. 9 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 9 of 21 Pageid#: 268 violate the Fourt, h Am endment,and thatthe defendantis entitled to qualified immlmity. The courtw illaddress each claim in ttu' n. A. Fourteenth A m endm ent Turning srstto the Fourteenth Amendm entclaim ,the courtap eeswith SheriffJenkins thattheDueProcessClause isnottheproperlensthrough which to evaluatethevalidity ofItios' continued detention atthe requestofICE. Sçcom pared to the Sm ore generalized notion'ofdue process,the Fourth AmendmentSprovides an explicittextualsource ofconstitutionalprotection againstgllnreasonable seizllres and arrestsl.''' Safar,859 F.3d at345 (alterations in odginal) (quoting Grahnm,490U.S.at395);see also Brooks,85F.3d at183 (fTheFourth Amendment proM bits law erlforcem entofficers from m aldng lznreasonable seiztlres,and the seizure of an individualeffectedwithoutprobablecauseisunreasonable.''). tr etention,ofcourse,isatypeof seizure oftheperson towhich Fourth Am endmentprotectionsattach,''Alcocerv.M ills,906 F.3d 944,953(11thCir.2018),andcourtshavetreatedanindividual'scontinueddetentiononthebasis ofan ICE detainerasa ttnew seizure forFourth Am endmentpurposesy''M oralesv.Chadbollrne, 793F.3d208,217(1stCir.2015). lfaconstitutionalclaim iscoveredbyaspecifcconstimtional provision, such as the Fourth Amendm ent,Stthe claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to thatspecificprovision,notlmdertherubric ofsubstantive due process.'' United Statesv.Lnnier,520U.S.259,272n.7(1997).' Applying theseprinciples,thecourtconcludesthatRios'claim ofllnlawftzldetention falls tm derthe Fourth Am endm ent,ratherthatlthe Fourteenth Am endm ent'sD ue Process Clause. A s noted above,the Fourth Amendm entspecifically prohibitstmreasonable seizures. Because the Fottrth A m endm ent provides an explicit source of protection for the zight that the defendant allegedlyviolated,itgovernstheanalysisoftheplaintiffsclaim tmderj 1983. SeeM cocer,906 10 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 10 of 21 Pageid#: 269 F.3d at954-55 (holding thatthe Fourth Amendmentgovemed the plaintiY s claim thather detention was llnlawfully prolonged based on information provided by ICE); C.F.C. v. Minmi-badeCtv.,349 F.Supp.3d 1236,1265-66 (S.D.Fla.2018)(holding thattheplaintiffs' j1983claim arisingf' rom theircontinued detentionattherequestofICE mustbeanalyzedtmder theFourth Amendmentratherthan theFourteenth Amendment);Abriq v.Hall,295F.Supp.3d 874,882 (M .D.Telm.2018)(concluding thataclaim forillegalseizure broughtby aplaintiff detainedonthebasisofanICE detainer$çfa11stmdertheFourthAmendment,nottheFourteenth'). Accordingly,the courtwillg' rantJenkins'motion to dismissCountI.4 B. Fourth A m endm ent In m oving to dismissthe Fourth Am endmentclaim asserted in CotmtI1,Jenkinscontends thatsuch claim isbarred by the doctrine ofqualified immunity. Forthe following reasons,the courtagTees. The doctrine of qualifed immllnity shields governm ent officials from civil damages liability ççso long astheirconductçdoesnotviolateclearly established statutory orconstitutional rightsofwhich areasonableperson wouldhave1cnown.'''5 M ullenixv.Ltm a,136 S.Ct.305,308 (2015)(quoting Pearson v.Callahan,555 U.S.223,231(2009:. ($To overcomethisslzield a 4 Asnoted above,theplaintiffappearstohave abandoned any separateprocedmaldueprocessclaim . In any event,becausethefactsalleged do notestablish aclearproceduraldueprocessviolation ofwhich areasonable oo cialin Jenkins'position wouldhaveknown,such claim isbarred bythedoctrineofqualified hnmtmity,whichis discussed morefullybelow. Succinctly stated,theplaintiffdoesnotcitetoanyauthority indicatingthatitwasclearly establishedthathe wasentitled to ahearing orotherprocessbeforebeing detained foran additional48 hoursatthe requestofICE. ' 5Qualifiedimmunityappliestoclaimsformonetaryreliefagainstoffkialsintheirindividualcapacities,but isnotadefenseagainstclaimsfordeclaratoryorinjtmctiverelief. W allv.Wade,741F.3d492,498n.9(4thCir. 2014). Dtlringthehemingonthedefendant'smotion,theplaintiffmadeclearthathewasonlyseekingreliefinthe form ofdnmages. Totheextentthatthecomplaintalsorequestedajudpnentdeclnringthatitwaslmlawfulforthe defendanttodet' zintheplaintiffattherequestof1CE intheabsenceofa2874g)apeement,suchreliefislmavailable. SeeCorlissv.O'Brien,200F.App'x 80,84 (3d Cir.2006)(sreclaratoryjudgmentisinapgropriatesolelyto adjudicategastconduct. Norisdeclaratoryjudpnentmeantsimplytoproclaim thatonepartyisllabletoanothenn); seealsoW llliamsv.City ofCleveland,907F.3d924,933(6th Cir.2018)(holdingthattheplaintiffdidnothave standingtorequestdeclaratoryreliefsinceshewmsnolongerinthedefendant'scustody atthetim etheactionwasfled andtlzeparticularpolicyatissuewasnolongerinplace). 11 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 11 of 21 Pageid#: 270 plaintiffmustdemonstratethat:(1)thedefendantviolatedtheplaintiT sconstitutionalrights,and (2)therightin question wasclearly establishedatthetimeoftheallegedviolation.'' Adnmsv. Ferguson,884F.3d219,226(4thCir.2018);seealsoCrousev.TownofM oncksCom er,848F.3d 576,583 (4th Cir.2017)(citing Ashcroftv.al-Kidd,563 U.S.731,735 (2011:. An officialis entitled to qualified immllnity ifeitherprong isnotsatisfied. Pearson,555 U.S.at244-25. The Suprem e Courthas held that lower courts are Slperm itted to exercise their sotmd discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualised im munity analysis should be addressed firstin lightofthe circllm stancesin theparticularcaseathand.'' Pearson,555 U.S.at 236. The Courthastlrged lowercourts to Etthink carefully before expending Sscarcejudicial resources'toresolve diftk ultand novelquestionsofconstitutionalorstatutoryintem retation that willEhavenoeffectontheoutcomeofthecase.''' al-loidd,563U.S.at735(quotingPearson,555 U.S.at236-37). Therefore,ad/essingthesecondprongbeforetheftrstisespeciallyappropriate in caseswhere$&acourtwillratherquicldy and easily decidethattherewasno violation ofcleady established law.'' Pearson,555 U .S.at239. Because thisisone ofthose cases,the courtwill proceed directly to thesecond prong. Underthesecondprong,agovem mentofficialisentitledto qualified im mlmityiftheright atissuewasnotçtclearly established atthetim eofthe challenged conduct.'' al-u dd,563U .S.at 735. TheSuprem eCourthasexplainedthataconstimtionalrightisclearly established whereççits contoursEare)sufficientlyclearthatareasonableofficialwouldtmderstandthatwhatheisdoing violates thatdght'' Hope v.Pelzer,536 U.S.730,739 (2002). tçln otherwords,Gexisting precedentmusthaveplaced the statutory orconstitutionalquestion beyond debate.''' Reichlev. Howards,566 U.S.658,664 (2012)(quoting al-M dd,563 U.S.at741). Thus,ççifthere is a legitim ate question asto whetheran official'sconductconstitutes a constimtionalviolation,the 12 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 12 of 21 Pageid#: 271 oflicialisentitled to qualised immuniy '' M artin v.St.M ary'sDep'tof Soc.Servs.,346 F.3d 502,505 (4th Cir.2003)(internalquotation marksomitted);see also Pearson,555 U.S.at244 (t&Theprinciplesofqualifed immtmity sllield an offkerfrom personalliability when an offker reasonablybelievesthathisorherconductcomplieswiththe1aw.''). TheSuprem eCourthasttrepeatedly toldcourts...nottodesneclearlyestablished1aw ata high levelofgenerality.'' al-ltidd,563 U.S.at742. Instead,thecourtm ustdetennine lçwhether the violative nature ofparticularconductisclearly established.'' JZ ççf' llisinquiry tmustbe tmdertaken in light of the specifc context of the case,not as a broad general proposition.'' M ullenix. 136 S.Ct.at 308 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Courthas recognized thatççlsluch speciscity isespecially importantin the Fourth Amendmentcontext, wheretheCourthasrecognizedthat(itqissometimesdiffkultforanoffcertodeterminehow the relevantlegaldoctrine...willapply tothefactualsimationtheofficerconfronts.'' Id.(internal quotationmarksomitted);seealsoal-Kidd,563U.S.at742 (notingthattheçlgeneralproposition . . . thatan unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendm entis of little help in determiningwhethertheviolativenattlreofparticularconductisclearlyestablished');City& Cty. of San Francisco v.Sheehan, 135 S.Ct.1765,1776 (2015) (emphasizing that çtgqqualified imm tmityisno imm llnity ata11ifSclearly established'law can simply bedefined astherighttobe free from unreasonable searchesand seizures.''). çtfhisisnotto say thatan offkialaction is protected by qualifed immllnity llnless the very action in question has previously been held tm law ful,butitisto say thatin the lightofpre-existing law the unlawfulness m ustbe apparent'' Anderson v.Creighton,483U.S.635,640 (1987). lfthedefendant'sactionsRwerenotclearly lmlawfulwhen performed,''heisentitled to qualised imm tmity. Francisv.Giacomelli,588F.3d 186,196(4thCir.2009). 13 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 13 of 21 Pageid#: 272 Inthiscase,Rioscontendsthatatthetime oflzisdetention,$çitwasclearly established that locallaw enforcementinVirginialackg)authoritytoeffecmatecivilimmigrationarrestsabsenta 287(g)agreement''andthatlocal1aw erlforcementofficersviolatetheFotlrthAmendmentwhen they detain an individualsolely based on an lCE detainerand administrativewnrrant. P1.'sBr.in Opp'n 26,Dkt.No.14. To supportthese argum ents,Rioscitesto two cases:Arizona v.United States,567U.S.387(2012);andSantosv.Frederick CotmtyBoardofCommissioners,725F.3d. 451(4th Cir.2013).6 Forthe following reasons,the courtconcludesthatneitherofthecited decisionsplaced itbeyond debatethatJenkins'actionsviolatedtheFourth Am endment,andthata reasonable officialin Jerlkins'position could have believed thatluos'conthmed detention atthe requestofICE waslawful. Arizona wasapreemption casedecided undertheSupremacy ClauseoftheUnited States Constitution. 567 U.S.at399. TheSuprem rCourtultim ately heldthatfederal1aw preem pted a provision ofan Adzona statute thatauthorized state officers to independently arresta person, withoutaWarrant,ifthe officerhad probable cause to believethatthe person had com mitted an offense thatm ade him removable from the United States. 567 U .S.at410. In defense ofthe statm e,theStateofArizonaemphasizedthat8U.S.C.j 1357(g)(10)(B)permitsstateofficersto içcooperatewith theAttorney Generalin theidentifcation,apprehension,detention,orrem ovalof aliensnotlawfully presentin theUnited States.'' JZ However,the SupremeCourtfotmdthe State'sreliance on thisprovision tmpersuasive. Ld.s The Courtrecognized thatthereçimay be 6 Rios also subm its thathis position fmds supportin letter öpinions issued by the Attorney Generalof V irginia. However,such opinionsareStnotbinding''instateorfederalcomt Twietm eyerv.City ofH am pton.497 S.E.2d 858,861 (Va. 1998);City of Va.Beach v.Va.RestaurantAss'n.341 S.E.2d 198,200 (Va. 1986). A ccordingly they ttcalm otbeconsidered in deciding whetherparticularconductviolated clearly established law for pyposesofadjudgingentitlementtoqualifedimmtmiy '' Bookerv.S.C.Deo'tofCom,855F.3d533,538n.1(4th Cm 2017)iSeealsoFeministMaioritvFotmd.v.Htlrlev,911F.3d674,706n.18(4thCir.2018)(decliningtoconsider anonbindmgunpublishedoyinion 9om theUnited StatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitindetermining whetherparticularconductvlolatedclearlyestablishedlaw). 14 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 14 of 21 Pageid#: 273 som e nmbiguity asto whatconstim tescooperation''underthisprovision,butconcluded thattsno coherenttmderstandingof(theterm Gcooperate')wotlldincorporatethetmilateraldecisionofstate officersto arrestan alien forbeing removable absentany request,approval,orotherinstruction from theFederalGovernment'' J#=.at410. TheCourtnotedthatDHShadprovidedû'exnmples of what would constitm e cooperation tmder federal lam '' and that such examples include ççsittlationswhere States ...provide operationalsupportin executing aw arrant,orallow federal imm igration offcials to gain accessto detainees held in state facilities.'' Id. The Courtfotmd thattheçGtmilateralstateactiontodetainauthorizedby (theArizonastatutewentjfarbeyondthese meastlres,defeatinganyneedforcooperation.'' J-I. L Asthe foregoing slzmmary dem onstrates,Arizona addressed the viability ofSlunilateral arrests by state 1aw enforcement officers- arrests for im migration offenses m ade without a request, approval, or other instnlction 9om the federal government.'' Tenorio-serrano v. Ddscoll,324 F.Supp.3d 1053,1065 (D.Ariz.2018). Thedecisionplairlly indicatesthatsuch arrestsare notauthorized under j 1357(g)(10). See Santos,725 F.3d at466 (observing that AdzonaçtmakesclearthattmderSection 1357(g)(10)locallaw enfbrcementofficerscnnnotarrest aliensforcivilimm igration violationsabsent,ataminimllm ,direction orauthorization by federal ofticials.'). Significantly,however,the instant case does not hwolve a state or local1aw enforcem entofficer's Gturlilateraldecision ...to nrrestan alien forbeing rem ovable absentany request,approval,orotherinstruction from the FederalGovernm ent'' Arizona,567U .S.at410. Instead,the com plaintm akes clearthatthe plaintiffw asdetained upon receiptofa Rrequestf' rom federal imm ip ation authorities''in the form of an im migration detainer and adm inistrative warrant. Compl.!! 1,3. Contrarytotheplaintic sassertion,theSupremeCourt'sdecisionin Arizonadoesnotsuggest,much lessclearly establish,thatawritten287(g)agreementisrequired 15 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 15 of 21 Pageid#: 274 in orderfora state orlocal1aw ezlforcementofficialto lawfully detain a rem ovablealien atthe request of ICE. N or does it otherwise make clear that compliance w1111 lCE detainers and administrative warrantsfallsoutsidethescope ofpermissible Stcooperatlionq''with Sldetention'' lmderj1357(g)(10)(B). Instead,theArizonadecisioncalzbereadto suggestthatthechallenged conduct in tM s case--detairling an individualin accordance with an lCE detainerrequest and administrativewarrant- çswlasqnot'lnilateraland thus,did notexceed the scope''ofJenkins' authority to cooperate with federal im migration enforcem ent efforts. Urlited States v. Ovando-Garzo,752 F.3d 1161,1164 (8th Cir.2014)(citing Arizona,supra);see also City of El-cenizov.Texas,890F.3d 164,189(5th Cir.2018)(observingthatan1CE detninerrequestis . thetypeofEtfederaldirection''thatwasmissinginArizona). Thus,theSupremeCourt'sdecision did notclearly establishtheunconstitutionality ofthedetention atissueinthiscase. The snm eistruefortheFourth Circuit'sdecision in Santosv.Frededck Cotmtv Board of Comm issioners. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that local deputies violated her Fourth Amendm entzightsby seizing and antsting herbased on an outstanding civilwan'antforremoval issued by ICE. 725 F.3d at457,463. Atthe time oftheplaintiffsseizure,Gtthedeputies'only basis for detaiing Santos was the civilICE warrant''reported by dispatch. Id.at 465. The deputieswerenotauthorized to engage in immivation 1aw enforcementpursuantto a 287(g) agreement,andtheyhadnotyetconfirmedthatthewarrantwasactive. Ltt.at465-66. Although ICE ultimately requested that Santos be detained on its behalf,the EGrequest .. .came f'ully fortpfive minutes after Santos had already been arrested.'' J.Z at466. Therefore,it was Gçundisputedthatthedeputies'initialseixlreofSantoswasnotdirectedorauthorizedbyICE.'' Id. Applying Arizona,the Fourth Circuit held that,çtabsent express direction or authodzation by federalstam teorfederalofficials,stateandlocal1aw erlforcementoffcersm aynotdetain orarrest 16 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 16 of 21 Pageid#: 275 an individualsolely based on lcnown orsuspected civilviolations offederalimm igration lam '' JJ-,at465. Basedonthefactspresented,theCourtconcludedthattlthedeputiesviolatedSantos's rightsundertheFourthAmendmentwhentheyseizedherafterlenrningthatshewasthesubjectof a civilimmigration warrantand absentICE'Sexpress authodzation or direction.'' JJ-,at468. ET hus,Sarltos makes clearthatwhen,absentfederaldirection orauthorization,a state or local oftscerdetainsornrrestssom eonebased solely on acivilimm igrationviolation,theofficerviolates the individual's Fourth Amendm entrightto be free from lmreasonable searches and seimlres.'' Sanchezv.Sessions,885F.3d782,789(4thCir.2018). The facts ofthis case are readily distinguishable 9om those in Santos. Jenkinsdid not detain Riosbmsed on a suspected civilim migration violation before com mlmicating with federal authodties. Instead,Jenkinsheld Riosforup to 48 additionalholzrsptlrsuantto the imm igration detainerand adm inistrativewarrantissued by ICE. Asindicated above,thedetahzerspeciscally requested thatJenkinsm aintain custody ofRiosforan additional48 hoursbeyondthetim ewhen he would otherwise have been released 9om the sheriff's custody. And tmlike Santos,Jenkins received the ICE detainer and administrative wan'antlong before the plaintiY s detention was tempormily extended. W hile Rios argues thatthe detainer is Rmerely a request''and therefore çEdoesnotconstim teEICE'Sexpressauthodzation ordirection'within themeaning ofSantos,''this argum entfindsno supportin theFourth Circuit'sdecision. Ratherthan faulting theform ofthe requestfrom ICE,the Fourth Circuittook issue with the tim ing ofit- nam ely,the factthatthe ox cersdetained Santosbeforereceiving any comm unication ordirection from ICE: Although there m ay be no dispute asto whetherICE directed the deputies to detain Santos at some point,the key issue for otlr purposes is when ICE directed the deputies to detain her. W e conclude thatthe deputies seized Santoswhen Deputy Openshaw told hertorem ain seated- afterthey had lenrned oftheoutstanding ICE warrant but before dispatch confirm ed with ICE that the 17 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 17 of 21 Pageid#: 276 warrantwasactive. Indeed,ICE'SrequestthatSantosbe detained on ICE'S behalf cnme f'ully forty-tive minutes after Santos had already been arrested. Therefore,itistmdisputedthatthedéputies' initialseiztlre ofSantoswasnotdirected orauthorized by ICE. Santos,725 F.3d at466 (emphasis in original);see also City ofElCenizo,890 F.3d at 189 (observing thatthe seizure in Smltosviolated the Fourth Amendmentbecause tv ere was no federalrequestforassiktancebeforetheseiztlre'). TheCourtin no way suggested thatwhen a stateorlocal1aw enforcem entofficerdetainssom eone afterbeing requested to do soby ICE,the officercould violatetheFourth Am endmentprohibition againstllnreasonable seimlres. ' rhus,the Fourth Circuit'sdecision in Santosdid notputJenkinson noticethatdetaining theplaintifftmder thecircllmstancespresented herewould violatetheplaintifpsconstitutionalrights. ltiosdoesnotcite,and the courthasnotfotmd,any otherpreexisting decisions from the Fourth Circuitoritssistercircuitswhich clearly establishedthellnlawfulnessofJenkins'actions. See Santos,725 F.3d at 468 (emphasizing thatthe right at issue GGmusthave been clearly establishçdatthetimean ofscialengagedin achallenged action'')(citingHarlow v.Fitzgerald, 457U.S.800,818 (1982:. Although theThird Circuithad determined thatICE detainersare Sçpermissive,''ratherthançtmandatorys''Galarzav.Szalczyk,745F.3d634,642n.9(3dCir.2014), no cireuithad held thatitwould violatethe Fourth Amendm entto com ply with an 1CE detainer and administrative warrant. The snm e is true today. The courtrecognizes that som e district courts have recently determined that j 1357(g)(10) should notbe tGread to allow locallaw enfbrcem enttoarrestindividualsforcivilimmigration violationsattherequestof1CE,''7 alzd that 7Distdctcourtsthathavenarrowlyconstruedj1357(g)(10)havereasonedthatKifçotherwisecooperate'... wereread to allow locallaw enforcementto arrestindividualsforcivilimmivation violationsattherequestofICE, thetraining,supervisionandcertitkationpursuanttoaformalaleementbetweenDHS andstateox cersdescribedin theremainingprovisionsofSection 1357(g)wouldberenderedmeaningless.'' Creedlev.Miami-DadeCty..349F. Supp.34 1276,1304(S.D.Fla.2018);seealsoLopez-Aguilarv.MarionCty.Sheriff'sDen't.296F.Supp.3d959, 975 (S.D.Ind.201*7)(apeeing with theproposition thatj 1357(g)(10)cnnnotbereadto authorizeç'free-floating state-local cooperation . .. without tending to nullify the requirement of federal ttraining,certiikation,and supervision'otherwiseestablishedbySection 1357(g)'')(citationsomitted). 18 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 18 of 21 Pageid#: 277 holding som eonepm suantto an ICE detainer,withoutseparateprobablecauseto believethatthe person has com mitted a crime,GGgives rise to a Fourth Am endmentclaim agninstthe local1aw entbrcement.'' Creedle v.M inmi-Dade Cty.,349 F.Supp.3d 1276,1304 (S.D.Fla.2018). However,otherdiskictcourtshaveheldtothecontrary. See.e.a.,Lopez-Lopez,321F.Supp.3d at801(ssplaintiffhasnotpresentedaplausibleFourthAmendmentclaim againstAlleganCoullty asa m atteroflaw. ICE issued a facially valid admirlistrative wan'antforhisarrest,based on a determ ination that there was probable cause to believe that he was rem ovable. Then,1CE requested thatthe localitiesdetain Aaronthroughtheuseofan 1-247 detainer- which also recited the basis for probable cause. Allegan Cotmty cooperated by com plying with the federal govemment'srequest(asallowedpursuantto j 1357(g)(10))1byproviding operationalsupport' by holding Aaron untilICE could takecustody ofhim the following day. Based on tbisrecord, with al1 inferences to Aaron, Allegan Cotmty did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendm ent prohibition against tmreasonable seizures.'). Thus, even now, it cannot be said that the constim tionaland stattztoryquestionsatissuein thiscasearelçbeyonddebate.'' al-Kidd,563U .S. at741;seealso Gatesv.Khokhar,884F.3d 1290,1393 (11th Cir.2018)(çtrhatjudgesdisagree abouta constimtionalissueisitselfevidencethata rightisinsufficiently clearly established for purposesofdenyingqualifiedimmllnity.'')(citingW ilsonv.Layne,526U.S.603,618(1999:. In sum ,thecourtisconvincedthatJenkinsdidnotviolateclearly establishedfederal1aw by detainingRiosforan additional48hoursptlrsuantto theICE detainerand adm inistrativewarrant. Atthetimeoftheplaintiff'sdetention,existingprecedentsuggestedthat,ççlelvenintheabsenceof a written agreem ent,''locallaw ee orcem entoffkialsm ay cooperatewith ICE in thedetention or rem ovalofaliensnotlawfully presentin the United States,Santos,725 F.3d at464,when such cooperation isexpressly 'trequestledl''orauthorizedbyICE,Adzona,567 U.S.at410;seealso 19 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 19 of 21 Pageid#: 278 Santos,725 F.3d at465-66. Intlliscase,theICE detainerspecifcally requejtedthattheJailhold Riosforup to 48 additionalhotlrsafterhewould otherwisebereleased,and boththe detainerand theadm inistrativewarrantattested toprobablecauseofremovability. Consequently,Jenkinshad no reason to believe thatcom plying with the 48-hotIrdetainerrequestwould violate the Fourth Am endmentprohibition againstllnreasonable seizures. Because existing precedentdldid notput Ethesherifflon noticethathisconductwouldbeclearlyllnlawful,(dismissal)based onqualified immtmityisappropriate.'' Saucierv.Katz,533 U.S.194,202 (2001)(emphasisadded). Thus, Jenkins'motion willbe grantedwith respectto Colmt11.8 II. Claim under state Iaw In Count1I1ofthe com plaint,Riosclaim sthathewasfalsely impzisoned in violation of Virginia law . Having dism issed both federalclaim s,thecourtdeclinesto exercise supplem ental jurisdiction over Count111,and will dismiss that cotmtwithoutprejudice. See 28 U.S.C. 51367(c)(3)(authorizingadistrictcourtto declinetoexercisesupplementaljudsdiction whenit Gshasdismissedallclaimspverwhichithasoriginaljudsdiction');seealsoCnrnecie-M ellonUniv. v.Cohill,484 U.S.343,350 (1988)CtW hen ...thefederal-law claimshavedropped outofthe lawsuitin its early stages and only state-law claim sremain,the federalcourtshould declinethe exerciseofjllrisdiction bydismissingthecasewithoutprejudice');Bnnksv.Gore,738F.App'x 766,773(4thCir.2018)(sçGenerally,whenadistrictcourtdismissesallfederalclaimsintheeady stagesoflitigation,itshoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionoveranyremaizlingpendentstate1aw claimsbydismissingthoseclaimswithoutprejudice.''). Bln lightofthe foregoing analysis,the courtfmdsitllnnecessary to addressthe defendant'sremaining challengestotheviabilityoftheconstimtionalclaimsassertedtmder51983. 20 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 20 of 21 Pageid#: 279 Conclusion For the reasons stated,the courtwillgrantthe defendant's m otion with respect to the plaintiffs claims lmder 42 U.S.C. j 1983. ' Fhe remaiing claims tmder state 1aw willbe dismissedwithoutprejudice. The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthism em orandum opinion and the accompanying orderto a1lcotm selofrecord.. DATED:This /Y day ofJuly, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistdctJudge 21 Case 3:18-cv-00082-GEC Document 44 Filed 07/15/19 Page 21 of 21 Pageid#: 280
]]>
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.
