morales v. chadbourne, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Morales v. Chadbourne, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/30

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1425

ADA MORALES,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

BRUCE CHADBOURNE, DAVI D RI CCI O, and EDWARD DONAGHY,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. J ohn J . McConnel l , J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Chi ef J udge,Li pez and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udges.

St uar t F. Del er y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wi t h whomJ . MaxWei nt r aub, Aar on S. Gol dsmi t h, and Wi l l i am C. Peachey wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Kat her i ne Desor meau, wi t h whom R. Or i on Danj uma, Omar C.J adwat , Mar k W. Fr eel , Mackenzi e Mango, and Lena Gr aber wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 17, 2015


2/30

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Ada Mor al es i s a nat ur al i zed

Uni t ed St ates ci t i zen who was born i n Guat emal a. I n May 2009,

Moral es was i mpr i soned f or 24 hour s pur suant t o an i mmi gr at i on

det ai ner so agent s f r om t he U. S. I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms

Enf or cement ( " I CE") coul d i nvest i gat e her i mmi gr at i on st at us. She

br ought t hi s act i on al l egi ng, i nt er al i a, t hat t he I CE agent s - -

def endant s Edward Donaghy, Br uce Chadbour ne, and Davi d Ri cci o - -

unl awf ul l y det ai ned her i n vi ol at i on of her Four t h and Fi f t h

Amendment r i ght s.

Donaghy, t he I CE agent who i ssued t he detai ner , moved f or

summary j udgment on t he basi s of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. Chadbour ne

and Ri cci o, Donaghy' s super vi sors, moved t o di smi ss, al so on t he

basi s of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

def endant s' mot i ons, and t hey f i l ed t hi s i nt er l ocut or y appeal .

Donaghy ar gues t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y

on Moral es' s Four t h Amendment cl ai mbecause t he l aw was not cl ear l y

est abl i shed i n 2009 t hat an I CE agent was requi r ed t o have pr obabl e

cause bef or e i ssui ng a det ai ner . I n t he al t er nat i ve, he cont ends

t hat , i f pr obabl e cause was r equi r ed, t he l aw was not cl ear l y

est abl i shed i n 2009 t hat t he i ssuance of t he det ai ner under t he

appl i cabl e ci r cumst ances di d not const i t ut e pr obabl e cause. Wi t h

r egard t o Moral es' s Fi f t h Amendment equal pr otect i on cl ai m, Donaghy

ar gues t hat he di d not vi ol at e her cl ear l y est abl i shed Fi f t h

-2-


3/30

Amendment r i ght s because he di d not detai n Moral es sol el y on t he

basi s of her r ace, et hni ci t y, or nat i onal or i gi n.

Chadbour ne and Ri cci o cont end t hat t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because Mor al es f ai l ed t o al l ege suf f i ci ent

f acts t o pl ausi bl y st at e a super vi sor y l i abi l i t y cl ai mhol di ng t hem

r esponsi bl e f or al l owi ng t hei r subor di nat es t o i ssue det ai ner s

agai nst U. S. ci t i zens wi t hout pr obabl e cause i n vi ol at i on of t he

Four t h Amendment . They f ur t her ar gue t hat , even i f Mor al es' s

al l egat i ons wer e suf f i ci ent , t hey di d not vi ol at e a cl ear l y

est abl i shed Four t h Amendment r i ght .

Af t er r evi ew, we agr ee wi t h Moral es t hat t he l aw was

cl ear l y est abl i shed i n 2009 that , under t he Four t h Amendment , an

I CE agent r equi r ed pr obabl e cause t o i ssue an i mmi gr at i on det ai ner .

We, t her ef or e, af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s deni al of qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y on Moral es' s Four t h Amendment cl ai m agai nst Donaghy on

t hat i ssue. Because Donaghy' s Four t h Amendment argument r egardi ng

t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t he det ai ner t hat he i ssued agai nst

Moral es and hi s Fi f t h Amendment equal pr otect i on argument do not

pr esent pur e i ssues of l aw, hi s appeal on t hese gr ounds must be

di smi ssed f or l ack of appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on. These ar gument s rel y

on f act s asser t ed i n Donaghy' s decl ar at i ons, and t hose f act s wer e

not among t he ones t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed upon i n denyi ng

Donaghy' s mot i on. Fi nal l y, because Mor al es has suf f i ci ent l y

al l eged t hat super vi sors Chadbour ne and Ri cci o vi ol at ed a cl ear l y

-3-


4/30


5/30

another l aw enf orcement agency t o detai n a nonci t i zen up t o 48

hour s so t hat I CE may i nvest i gat e whet her t he nonci t i zen i s

subj ect t o depor t at i on. See 8 C. F. R. 287. 7( a) , ( d) .

The f i r st i nci dent t ook pl ace i n J ul y 2004. Mor al es had

been arr est ed by the Cr anst on, Rhode I sl and, Pol i ce Depart ment at

a l ocal K- Mar t on char ges t hat wer e ul t i mat el y di smi ssed. Even

t hough she was a U. S. ci t i zen, I CE i ssued a det ai ner agai nst

Mor al es i ndi cat i ng t hat she was a nonci t i zen subj ect t o r emoval .

Mor al es was det ai ned over ni ght pur suant t o t he det ai ner . Her

extended det ent i on caused her t o mi ss a f l i ght she had schedul ed t o

vi si t r el at i ves i n Guat emal a and t o f or f ei t t he $3, 000 ai r f ar e.

The second i nci dent , and t he basi s f or t hi s act i on,

occur r ed i n May 2009. On May 1, 2009, Moral es was ar r est ed whi l e

pl ayi ng wi t h her chi l dr en i n her f r ont yar d by t he Rhode I sl and

St at e Pol i ce on a war r ant f or cr i mi nal char ges r el at i ng t o al l eged

mi sr epr esent at i ons i n a st at e benef i t s appl i cat i on. 1 She was

t r anspor t ed t o t he pol i ce st at i on, wher e a st at e pol i ce of f i cer

asked her where she was born and whether she was " l egal . " Moral es

r esponded that she was born i n Guat emal a and t hat she was a U. S.

ci t i zen. Mor al es was t hen t r anspor t ed t o t he Rhode I sl and Adul t

Cor r ect i onal I nst i t ut i ons ( "ACI " ) , wher e she was booked i nt o

cust ody.

1 Accor di ng t o t he compl ai nt , Mor al es' s cr i mi nal char ges havebeen resol ved and she remai ns on pr obat i on.

-5-


6/30

On May 4, 2009, I CE f axed an i mmi gr at i on detai ner f ormt o

t he ACI . The det ai ner i ncor r ect l y i dent i f i ed Mor al es as an al i en

whose nat i onal i t y was Guatemal an, and st ated t hat an

"[ i ] nvest i gat i on has been i ni t i at ed t o det er mi ne whet her [ Mor al es]

i s subj ect t o r emoval f r om t he Uni t ed St at es. " The det ai ner

f ur t her i nf or med t he ACI t hat "[ f ] eder al r egul at i ons ( 8 C. F. R.

287. 7) r equi r e t hat you det ai n t he al i en f or a per i od not t o

exceed 48 hour s . . . t o pr ovi de adequat e t i me f or DHS t o assume

cust ody of t he al i en. " The det ai ner was i ssued by Donaghy, an I CE

agent based i n I CE' s Rhode I sl and Of f i ce. Donaghy was super vi sed

by Ri cci o, t he Resi dent - Agent - i n- Char ge of t he Rhode I sl and of f i ce,

and Chadbour ne, t he Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or of t he Bost on Fi el d

Of f i ce, whi ch has r esponsi bi l i t y over I CE oper at i ons i n Rhode

I sl and.

Bef or e t he det ai ner was i ssued, no I CE of f i ci al

i nt er vi ewed Mor al es t o ask whet her she was a U. S. ci t i zen, nor di d

anyone r equest document at i on f r omher r el at i ng t o her ci t i zenshi p.

I CE of f i ci al s al so f ai l ed t o sear ch f eder al i mmi gr at i on dat abases2

t o obt ai n a copy of her ci t i zenshi p appl i cat i on or cer t i f i cat e of

nat ur al i zat i on.

2 Donaghy cl ai ms i n decl arat i ons at t ached t o hi s mot i on f orsummar y j udgment and r epl y br i ef f i l ed i n t he di st r i ct cour t t hathe di d sear ch f ederal government databases when i nvest i gat i ngMor al es' s i mmi gr at i on st at us. The di st r i ct cour t , however , di d notr el y on t hose decl ar at i ons i n deci di ng Donaghy' s mot i on. We,t her ef or e, r eci t e Mor al es' s ver si on of t he f act s. See J ohnson, 515U. S. at 319.

-6-


7/30

The same day t hat I CE sent t he i mmi grat i on det ai ner t o

t he ACI , a st at e cour t or der ed Mor al es r el eased f r om cr i mi nal

cust ody on per sonal r ecogni zance. I nst ead of bei ng r el eased,

however , Mor al es was r e- booked i nt o ACI cust ody, st r i p sear ched,

and kept i n j ai l f or 24 mor e hour s based sol el y on t he I CE

det ai ner . When she was not i f i ed t hat her cont i nued det ent i on was

based on t he det ai ner , Mor al es t ol d mul t i pl e ACI empl oyees t hat t he

det ai ner was i ssued i n er r or because she i s a U. S. ci t i zen. The

ACI empl oyees di sr egarded her pl eas, and she was kept i n detent i on.

On May 5, 2009, I CE agent s ar r i ved at t he ACI and dr ove

Mor al es t o an I CE of f i ce i n War wi ck, Rhode I sl and. Ther e, t he I CE

agent s i nt er vi ewed her , conf i r med t hat she was a U. S. ci t i zen, and

r el eased her t o her f ami l y. Upon r el easi ng her , an I CE agent

apol ogi zed t o Mor al es, but t ol d her " i t coul d happen agai n i n t he

f ut ur e. "

On Apr i l 24, 2012, Mor al es f i l ed a ci vi l damages act i on

agai nst def endant s Donaghy, Ri cci o, and Chadbour ne, as wel l as

ot her f eder al and st at e def endant s who ar e not par t i es t o t hi s

appeal . Mor al es al l eged, i nt er al i a, t hat , by i ssui ng t he det ai ner

agai nst her , Donaghy vi ol ated her Four t h Amendment r i ght t o be f r ee

f r omunr easonabl e sei zur es and her Fi f t h Amendment equal pr ot ect i on

r i ght t o be f r ee f r om di scri mi nat i on on t he basi s of r ace,

et hni ci t y, and nat i onal or i gi n. She al l eged t hat Chadbour ne and

Ri cci o knew or wer e del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o t he f act t hat t hei r

-7-


8/30

subor di nat es r out i nel y i ssued I CE det ai ner s wi t hout pr obabl e cause,

and f or mul ated or condoned pol i ci es per mi t t i ng t he i ssuance of

det ai ner s wi t hout pr obabl e cause i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h

Amendment . Moral es sought damages f or t hese const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i ons under Bi vens v. Si x Unknown Named Agent s of t he Federal

Bur eau of Nar cot i cs, 403 U. S. 388 ( 1971) , as wel l as i nj unct i ve

r el i ef t o pr event def endant s f r om subj ect i ng her t o unl awf ul

i mmi gr at i on det ent i on agai n i n t he f ut ur e.

I n l i eu of answer i ng t he compl ai nt , def endant s f i l ed

var i ous mot i ons t o di smi ss and f or summary j udgment . As r el evant

here, Donaghy moved f or summary j udgment on t he basi s of qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y on t he Four t h and Fi f t h Amendment cl ai ms. Chadbour ne and

Ri cci o moved t o di smi ss Moral es s Four t h Amendment supervi sor y

l i abi l i t y cl ai m agai nst t hem, al so on t he basi s of qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y. On Febr uar y 12, 2014, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed

def endant s' mot i ons, and def endant s t i mel y f i l ed i nt er l ocut or y

appeal s.

II.

A. Claims Against Donaghy

1. Fourth Amendment Claim

We begi n by addr essi ng Donaghy' s cont ent i on t hat he i s

ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on Mor al es' s Four t h Amendment cl ai m.

We r evi ew de novo a di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a f eder al of f i cer ' s

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense. See Her nandez- Cuevas v. Tayl or , 723

-8-


9/30

F. 3d 91, 97 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . To det er mi ne whet her a def endant i s

ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, we gener al l y pr oceed t hr ough a

t wo- par t anal ysi s, consi der i ng whet her " ( 1) t he f act s al l eged show

t he def endant [ ' ] s conduct vi ol at ed a const i t ut i onal r i ght , and ( 2)

t he cont our s of t hi s r i ght ar e ' cl ear l y est abl i shed' under

t hen- exi st i ng l aw so that a r easonabl e of f i cer woul d have known

t hat hi s conduct was unl awf ul . " Sant ana v. Cal der n, 342 F. 3d 18,

23 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

Donaghy makes t wo argument s wi t h regard t o Moral es' s

Four t h Amendment cl ai m. Hi s f i r st ar gument i mpl i cat es onl y t he

second pr ong of t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y anal ysi s. He cont ends t hat

t he l aw was not cl ear l y est abl i shed i n 2009 t hat an I CE agent

needed pr obabl e cause when i ssui ng a detai ner . Hi s second argument

i mpl i cat es bot h pr ongs of t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y anal ysi s. He

ar gues t hat , i f pr obabl e cause was r equi r ed, t he undi sput ed f act s

of t hi s case demonst r ate t hat he had pr obabl e cause, and, moreover ,

t he l aw was not cl ear l y est abl i shed i n 2009 t hat t hese f act s f el l

shor t of pr obabl e cause. We addr ess each argument i n t ur n.

a. Whether Probable Cause Was Required

A gover nment of f i ci al ' s conduct vi ol at es cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw when, "at t he t i me of t he chal l enged conduct , [ t ] he

cont our s of [ a] r i ght [ ar e] suf f i ci ent l y cl ear t hat ever y

r easonabl e of f i ci al woul d . . . under st [ and] t hat what he i s doi ng

vi ol at es t hat r i ght . " Ashcrof t v. al - Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . 2074, 2083

-9-


10/30

( 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Ther e does not need t o

be a case exact l y on poi nt , "but exi st i ng pr ecedent must have

pl aced the st at ut or y or const i t ut i onal quest i on beyond debat e. "

I d. ; see al so Hope v. Pel zer , 536 U. S. 730, 741 ( 2002)

( "[ O] f f i ci al s can st i l l be on not i ce t hat t hei r conduct vi ol at es

est abl i shed l aw even i n novel f act ual ci r cumst ances. " ) .

Donaghy i ssued t he i mmi gr at i on detai ner agai nst Moral es

pur suant t o 8 C. F. R. 287. 7. That r egul at i on aut hor i zes an I CE

of f i ci al t o i ssue a det ai ner t o anot her l aw enf or cement agency t o

"seek[ ] cust ody of an al i en pr esent l y i n cust ody of t hat agency,

f or t he pur pose of ar r est i ng and r emovi ng t he al i en. " 8 C. F. R.

287. 7( a) . Once t he al i en has compl et ed her cr i mi nal cust ody and

i s "not ot her wi se det ai ned by a cr i mi nal j ust i ce agency, " t he

det ai ner i nst r uct s t he agency t o "mai nt ai n cust ody of t he al i en f or

a per i od not t o exceed 48 hour s, excl udi ng Satur days, Sundays, and

hol i days[ , ] i n or der t o per mi t assumpt i on of cust ody by [ I CE] . "

I d. 287. 7( d) ; see al so i d. 287. 7( a) ( not i ng t hat a "det ai ner i s

a request t hat [ anot her l aw enf or cement ] agency advi se [ I CE] , pr i or

t o r el ease of t he al i en, i n or der f or [ I CE] t o ar r ange t o assume

cust ody" of t he al i en) . Thus, t he sol e pur pose of a det ai ner i s t o

r equest t he cont i nued det ent i on of an al i en so t hat I CE of f i ci al s

may assume cust ody of t hat al i en and i nvest i gate whether t o

i ni t i at e removal pr oceedi ngs agai nst her .

-10-


11/30

Longst andi ng pr ecedent est abl i shes t hat " [ t ] he Four t h

Amendment appl i es t o al l sei zur es of t he per son, i ncl udi ng sei zur es

t hat i nvol ve onl y a br i ef det ent i on shor t of t r adi t i onal ar r est . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Br i gnoni - Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 ( 1975) ( ci t i ng

Davi s v. Mi ssi ssi ppi , 394 U. S. 721 ( 1969) ; Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S.

1, 16- 19 ( 1968) ) ; see al so Dunaway v. New Yor k, 442 U. S. 200, 216

( 1979) ( "[ D] et ent i on f or cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on - - r egar dl ess of

i t s l abel - - i nt r udes so sever el y on i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he

Four t h Amendment as necessar i l y t o t r i gger t he t r adi t i onal

saf eguar ds agai nst i l l egal ar r est . ") .

I n Br i gnoni - Ponce, t he Supr eme Cour t appl i ed t hi s wel l -

est abl i shed pr i nci pl e t o det er mi ne what st andar d of pr oof , i f any,

an i mmi gr at i on of f i cer must appl y t o st op and det ai n i ndi vi dual s t o

i nvest i gat e t hei r i mmi gr at i on st at us. See 422 U. S. at 880- 82. I n

t hat case, t he gover nment ar gued t hat , wi t hi n 100 mi l es of t he

bor der , i t had "aut hor i t y to st op movi ng vehi cl es and quest i on t he

occupant s about t hei r ci t i zenshi p, even when i t s of f i cer s have no

r eason t o bel i eve t hat t he occupant s ar e al i ens or t hat ot her

al i ens may be conceal ed i n t he vehi cl e. " I d. at 877. The Supr eme

Cour t r ej ect ed t he gover nment ' s ar gument . The Cour t st at ed t hat ,

j ust as i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext , an i mmi grat i on of f i cer "must have

a r easonabl e suspi ci on" t o j ust i f y br i ef l y st oppi ng i ndi vi dual s t o

quest i on t hem" about t hei r ci t i zenshi p and i mmi gr at i on st at us . . .

but any f ur t her det ent i on . . . must be based on . . . pr obabl e

-11-


12/30

cause. " I d. at 881- 82 ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng Ter r y, 392 U. S. at

29) ; see al so i d. at 884 ( " [ T] he Four t h Amendment . . . f or bi ds

st oppi ng or det ai ni ng per sons f or quest i oni ng about t hei r

ci t i zenshi p on l ess t han a reasonabl e suspi ci on t hat t hey may be

al i ens . " ) .

Gui ded by t hi s Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , we have al so

r equi r ed t hat i mmi gr at i on of f i cer s have reasonabl e suspi ci on t o

br i ef l y st op i ndi vi dual s t o quest i on t hem r egar di ng t hei r

i mmi gr at i on st at us and pr obabl e cause f or any f ur t her ar r est and

det ent i on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Mendez- de J esus, 85 F. 3d 1,

3 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat Br i gnoni - Ponce st ands f or " t he

pr i nci pl e t hat an i ndi vi dual may not be [ br i ef l y] det ai ned f or

quest i oni ng about ci t i zenshi p absent r easonabl e suspi ci on that t he

per son i s an i l l egal al i en") ; Lopez v. Gar r i ga, 917 F. 2d 63, 69

( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( not i ng t hat det ent i on t o i nqui r e about an

i ndi vi dual ' s i mmi gr at i on st at us i s "a sei zur e and i mpl i cat e[ s] t he

[ F] our t h [ A] mendment " ( ci t i ng I mmi gr at i on & Nat ur al i zat i on Ser v. v.

Del gado, 466 U. S. 210, 216- 17 ( 1984) ; Ter r y, 392 U. S. at 21) ) ;

Navi a- Dur an v. I mmi gr at i on & Nat ur al i zat i on Ser v. , 568 F. 2d 803,

809 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r . 1977) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat an i mmi gr at i on ar r est and

detent i on needs t o be "support ed by pr obabl e cause or r easonabl e

suspi ci on") .

I t was t hus cl ear l y est abl i shed wel l bef or e Mor al es was

det ai ned i n 2009 t hat i mmi gr at i on st ops and ar r est s wer e subj ect t o

-12-


13/30

t he same Fourt h Amendment r equi r ement s t hat appl y t o ot her st ops

and ar r est s - - r easonabl e suspi ci on f or a br i ef st op, and pr obabl e

cause f or any f ur t her ar r est and det ent i on. Mor eover , t her e coul d

be no quest i on i n 2009 t hat detent i on aut hor i zed by an i mmi gr at i on

det ai ner woul d r equi r e mor e than j ust r easonabl e suspi ci on.

Al t hough t he l i ne bet ween an ar r est t hat r equi r es pr obabl e cause

and a t empor ar y det ent i on f or i nt er r ogat i on whi ch does not i s not

al ways cl ear , pr e- 2009 cases di d cl ear l y show t hat 48 hour s of

i mpr i sonment - - whi ch i s what t he det ai ner r equest s, see 8 C. F. R.

287. 7( d) - - f al l s wel l on t he ar r est si de of t he di vi de. See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Pl ace, 462 U. S. 696, 709 ( 1983) ( emphasi zi ng

t hat t he Supr eme Cour t had "never appr oved a sei zur e of t he person

f or t he pr ol onged 90- mi nut e per i od i nvol ved her e" based sol el y on

r easonabl e suspi ci on, and "cannot do so on t he f acts present ed by

t hi s case") ; Manzanar ez v. Hi gdon, 575 F. 3d 1135, 1148 ( 10t h Ci r .

2009) ( expl ai ni ng t hat i t was unabl e t o f i nd any case i n any

ci r cui t uphol di ng a det ent i on of l onger t han 90 mi nut es based on

r easonabl e suspi ci on) ; see al so Au Yi Lau v. I mmi gr at i on &

Nat ur al i zat i on Ser v. , 445 F. 2d 217, 222 ( D. C. Ci r . 1971) ( whet her

an i mmi gr at i on st op of "sever al mi nut es" coul d be j ust i f i ed based

sol el y on r easonabl e suspi ci on was a "di f f i cul t [ ] " quest i on, but

uphol di ng t he st op as i t was "mi nut es r at her t han hour s" ) .

Thi s cl ear l aw est abl i shi ng t hat t he Const i t ut i on

r equi r es probabl e cause f or t he i mmi gr at i on det ent i on t hat a

-13-


14/30

det ai ner r equest s i s f ur t her r ei nf or ced by cases i nt er pr et i ng t he

st at ut e aut hor i zi ng i mmi gr at i on det ai ner s. Under f eder al l aw,

i mmi gr at i on of f i cer s may ar r est and det ai n an al i en "pendi ng a

deci si on on whet her t he al i en i s t o be r emoved f r om t he Uni t ed

St at es" i f a "war r ant [ i s] i ssued by t he At t or ney Gener al . " 8

U. S. C. 1226( a) . St at ut or y aut hor i t y f or war r ant l ess enf or cement

act i ons, i ncl udi ng t he i ssuance of det ai ner s, i s pr ovi ded i n 8

U. S. C. 1357. Wi t hout a war r ant , i mmi gr at i on of f i cer s ar e

aut hor i zed t o ar r est an al i en onl y i f t hey have " r eason t o bel i eve

t hat t he al i en so ar r est ed i s i n t he Uni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of

any [ i mmi gr at i on] l aw or r egul at i on and i s l i kel y t o escape bef or e

a war r ant can be obt ai ned f or hi s ar r est . " I d. 1357( a) ( 2)

( emphasi s added) ; see al so 8 C. F. R. 287. 8( c) ( 2) ( i ) ( "An ar r est

shal l be made onl y when t he desi gnated i mmi gr at i on of f i cer has

r eason t o bel i eve t hat t he person t o be arr est ed has commi t t ed an

of f ense agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es or i s an al i en i l l egal l y i n t he

Uni t ed St at es. " ( emphasi s added) ) . The pr ovi si on speci f i es t hat i n

or der t o i ssue a det ai ner f or al i ens who have vi ol at ed cont r ol l ed

subst ances l aws, i mmi gr at i on of f i cer s r equi r e a " r eason t o bel i eve

t hat t he al i en may not have been l awf ul l y admi t t ed t o the Uni t ed

St at es or ot her wi se i s not l awf ul l y pr esent i n t he Uni t ed St at es. "

8 U. S. C. 1357( d) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) .

Cour t s have consi st ent l y hel d t hat t he " r eason t o

bel i eve" phr ase i n 1357 "must be r ead i n l i ght of const i t ut i onal

-14-


15/30

st andar ds, so t hat ' r eason t o bel i eve' must be consi der ed t he

equi val ent of pr obabl e cause. " Au Yi Lau, 445 F. 2d at 222; see,

e. g. , Tej eda- Mat a v. I mmi gr at i on & Nat ur al i zat i on Ser v. , 626 F. 2d

721, 725 ( 9t h Ci r . 1980) ( "The phr ase ' has r eason t o bel i eve' [ i n

1357] has been equat ed wi t h the const i t ut i onal r equi r ement of

pr obabl e cause. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cant u, 519 F. 2d 494, 496 ( 7t h

Ci r . 1975) ( "The wor ds [ i n 1357] of t he st at ut e ' r eason t o

bel i eve' ar e pr oper l y taken t o si gni f y pr obabl e cause. ") ; see al so

Uni t ed St ates v. Qui nt ana, 623 F. 3d 1237, 1239 ( 8t h Ci r . 2010)

( "Because t he Four t h Amendment appl i es t o ar r est s of i l l egal

al i ens, t he t er m ' r eason t o bel i eve' i n 1357( a) ( 2) means

const i t ut i onal l y r equi r ed pr obabl e cause. ") .

Based on t he " r obust consensus of cases [ and] persuasi ve

aut hor i t y" di scussed above, al - Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . at 2084, i t i s

beyond debate t hat an i mmi gr at i on of f i cer i n 2009 woul d need

pr obabl e cause to ar r est and det ai n i ndi vi dual s f or t he pur pose of

i nvest i gat i ng t hei r i mmi gr at i on st at us.

Never t hel ess, Donaghy cont ends t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because t here were no cases i n 2009 that

speci f i cal l y hel d t hat l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s r equi r ed pr obabl e

cause i n t he "di f f i cul t and uni que ci r cumst ance" of i ssui ng a

det ai ner . I n hi s vi ew, t he i ssuance of a det ai ner i s f actual l y

di st i nct f r om ot her i mmi gr at i on det ent i ons because "[ a] n

i mmi gr at i on det ai ner does not i t sel f const i t ut e an ar r est , " and he

-15-


16/30

was " not hi msel f i n a posi t i on t o cont r ol " what happened t o Mor al es

af t er he i ssued t he det ai ner . Appel l ant s' Br . at 27, 28.

Fi r st , we pause t o note t he r eason why ther e wer e l i kel y

no cases i n 2009 di r ect l y addr essi ng i mmi gr at i on det ai ner s. The

government had conceded f or years t hat a detai ner must be suppor t ed

by pr obabl e cause. For exampl e, i n 1985, t he I mmi gr at i on and

Nat ur al i zat i on Ser vi ce st i pul at ed t hat a det ai ner "may onl y be

aut hor i zed . . . when t he of f i cer has det er mi ned t hat t her e i s

pr obabl e cause . . . . " Cer vant ez v. Whi t f i el d, 776 F. 2d 556, 560

( 5t h Ci r . 1985) . Because t he government had agr eed t hat t he

i ssuance of a det ai ner r equi r ed pr obabl e cause, t her e was never any

case or cont r over sy r equi r i ng a cour t t o make a det er mi nat i on on

t hi s i ssue. See Cnt y. Mot or s, I nc. v. Gen. Mot or s Cor p. , 278 F. 3d

40, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "The Const i t ut i on gr ant s f eder al cour t s

j ur i sdi ct i on onl y over l i ve cases or cont r oversi es. " ( ci t i ng U. S.

Const . , ar t . I I I , 2, cl . 1. ) ) . A r ul i ng i n f avor of Donaghy

woul d cr eat e a perver se i ncent i ve t hat woul d al l ow t he government

t o avoi d l i abi l i t y by concedi ng an i ssue f or decades and

subsequent l y ar gui ng t hat t he l aw was not cl ear l y est abl i shed on

t hat i ssue because ther e wer e no cases di r ect l y on poi nt . 3

3 I n r ecent year s, t he government has begun cont est i ng whethera det ai ner needs pr obabl e cause, and cour t s have uni f or ml y hel dt hat pr obabl e cause i s r equi r ed. See, e. g. , Mendoza v. Ost er ber g,No. 8: 13CV65, 2014 WL 3784141, at *6 ( D. Neb. J ul y 31, 2014) ;Gonzal es v. I CE, No. 13- 04416, Dkt . 42, at *12 ( C. D. Cal . J ul y 28,2014) ; Mi r anda- Ol i var es v. Cl ackamas Cnt y. , No. 3: 12cv02317ST,2014 WL 1414305, at *9- 11 ( D. Or . Apr . 11, 2014) ; Ur oza v. Sal t

-16-


17/30

As t o Donaghy' s l at t er poi nt , whi l e a det ai ner i s

di st i nct f r om an ar r est , i t never t hel ess resul t s i n t he det ent i on

of an i ndi vi dual . See 8 C. F. R. 287. 7. Mor al es al l eges t hat

af t er her cr i mi nal cust ody had t er mi nat ed, she was det ai ned f or 24

addi t i onal hour s based sol el y on t he det ai ner i ssued by Donaghy.

Because Moral es was kept i n cust ody f or a new pur pose af t er she was

ent i t l ed t o r el ease, she was subj ect ed t o a new sei zur e f or Four t h

Amendment pur poses - one that must be support ed by a new probabl e

cause j ust i f i cat i on. See I l l i noi s v. Cabal l es, 543 U. S. 405,

407- 08 ( 2005) ; Ar i zona v. Uni t ed St at es, 132 S. Ct . 2492, 2509

( 2012) ( " [ D] el ay[ i ng] t he r el ease of some det ai nees f or no r eason

ot her t han t o ver i f y t hei r i mmi gr at i on st at us . . . woul d r ai se

const i t ut i onal concer ns. ") .

Moreover , al t hough Moral es cont i nued t o be detai ned by

ACI of f i ci al s, and not by Donaghy hi msel f , i t was al so cl ear l y

est abl i shed t hat a l aw enf or cement of f i cer i s " r esponsi bl e f or t he

nat ur al consequences of hi s act i ons. " Mal l ey v. Br i ggs, 475 U. S.

335, 344 n. 7 (1986) ( quot i ng Monr oe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187

( 1961) ) ; see al so i d. at 344- 45 ( hol di ng t hat "an of f i cer whose

r equest f or a war r ant al l egedl y caused an unconst i t ut i onal ar r est "

can be hel d l i abl e f or t he ar r est wher e " t he war r ant appl i cat i on i s

Lake Cnty. , No. 2: 11CV713DAK, 2013 WL 653968, at *6 ( D. Ut ah Feb.21, 2013) ; Gal arza v. Szal czyk, No. 10cv06815, 2012 WL 1080020,at *10, *13 ( E. D. Pa. Mar . 30, 2012) r ev' d on ot her gr ounds, 745F. 3d 634 ( 3d Ci r . 2014) .

-17-


18/30

so l acki ng i n i ndi ci a of pr obabl e cause as t o r ender of f i ci al

bel i ef i n i t s exi st ence unr easonabl e" ) ; Tor r es Rami r ez v. Ber mudez

Gar ci a, 898 F. 2d 224, 228 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( hol di ng t hat an of f i cer

who knowi ngl y pr ocessed an i nval i d war r ant coul d be hel d l i abl e f or

t he subsequent unl awf ul ar r est ) . The nat ur al consequence of

Donaghy i ssui ng t he detai ner was t hat Moral es woul d be detai ned f or

up t o 48 hour s. Donaghy cannot ar gue otherwi se. The detai ner he

i ssued, on i t s f ace, i nst r ucted ACI of f i ci al s t o "det ai n t he al i en

f or a per i od not t o exceed 48 hour s. "

Donaghy al so never expl ai ns why detai ners pr esent such

"di f f i cul t and uni que" ci r cumst ances as t o al l ow hi mt o ci r cumvent

t he Four t h Amendment ' s probabl e cause requi r ement . I ndeed, we do

not under st and why i t woul d be mor e di f f i cul t t o obt ai n t he f act s

necessar y to est abl i sh pr obabl e cause f or an i ndi vi dual who was

det ai ned i n cr i mi nal cust ody t han f or an i ndi vi dual who was wal ki ng

f r eel y i n t he communi t y. Ar guabl y, i t woul d be easi er t o est abl i sh

pr obabl e cause i n t he case of det ai ner s, because i mmi gr at i on

of f i cer s woul d have easi er access t o i nt er vi ew and obt ai n r ecor ds

f r om an i ndi vi dual det ai ned i n cr i mi nal cust ody. Her e, al t hough

f eder al r egul at i ons per mi t an i mmi gr at i on of f i cer " t o ask quest i ons

of anyone as l ong as t he i mmi gr at i on of f i cer does not r est r ai n t he

f r eedom of an i ndi vi dual , " 8 C. F. R. 287. 8( b) ( 1) , Donaghy admi t s

t hat he "never met or even t al ked t o Ms. Mor al es bef ore i ssui ng an

I CE det ai ner " agai nst her . Appel l ant s' Br . at 33.

-18-


19/30

Donaghy' s ar gument i mpl i es t hat a reasonabl e of f i cer i n

2009 coul d have i ssued an i mmi gr at i on detai ner agai nst an

i ndi vi dual f or any r eason - - or no r eason what soever . Not abl y,

Donaghy does not argue t hat r easonabl e suspi ci on or some ot her

l ower evi dent i ar y st andar d appl i ed t o det ai ner s i n 2009. I nst ead,

he cont ends t hat i t was not cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat t he Four t h

Amendment woul d appl y at al l . Donaghy st ates t hat " a r easonabl e

of f i cer i n 2009 coul d have thought t hat t he const i t ut i onal

st andar ds . . . wer e not appl i cabl e t o t he i ssuance of t he

det ai ner . " I d. at 27. Thi s unpr ecedent ed pr oposi t i on i s

cont r adi ct ed by l ongst andi ng Four t h Amendment j ur i sprudence. See,

e. g. , Dunaway, 442 U. S. at 214- 15 ( "Not hi ng i s mor e cl ear t han t hat

t he Four t h Amendment was meant t o pr event whol esal e i nt r usi ons upon

t he per sonal secur i t y of our ci t i zenr y, whet her t hese i nt r usi ons be

t er med ' ar r est s' or ' i nvest i gat or y det ent i ons. ' ") . Donaghy' s

cont ent i on si mpl y has no suppor t i n our case l aw. To t he cont r ar y,

t he l aw was cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat Donaghy requi r ed pr obabl e

cause t o det ai n Mor al es pur suant t o an i mmi gr at i on det ai ner . Cf .

Suboh v. Di st . At t or ney' s Of f i ce of Suf f ol k Di st . , 298 F. 3d 81, 94

( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "We have no doubt t hat t her e i s a cl ear l y

est abl i shed const i t ut i onal r i ght at st ake, al t hough we have f ound

no case exact l y on al l f our s wi t h t he f act s of t hi s case. ") .

-19-


20/30

b. Whether Donaghy Had Probable Cause

Donaghy cont ends t hat , even i f pr obabl e cause was

r equi r ed, he i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because he had

pr obabl e cause when i ssui ng t he det ai ner agai nst Mor al es, or , at

t he ver y l east , t he l aw was not cl ear l y est abl i shed i n 2009 t hat

t he ci r cumst ances appl i cabl e t o t he i ssuance of t he det ai ner di d

not const i t ut e pr obabl e cause. Donaghy' s ar gument r el i es on swor n

decl arat i ons t hat he at t ached t o hi s mot i on f or summary j udgment

and r epl y br i ef i n t he di st r i ct cour t . I n t hose decl ar at i ons,

Donaghy cont ends t hat he made t he deci si on t o i ssue t he detai ner

af t er r evi ewi ng var i ous st at e and f eder al comput er dat abases and

determi ni ng t hat Moral es was a nonci t i zen who had "ent ered t he

Uni t ed St at es wi t hout i nspect i on and [ was] pr esent i n t he Uni t ed

St at es wi t hout aut hor i zat i on. " Donaghy Decl . , Dkt . 20- 3 at 2, No.

1: 12- cv- 00301- M- DLM ( D. R. I . f i l ed Sept . 4, 2012) . I n par t i cul ar ,

Donaghy asser t s t hat he anal yzed t he ACI ' s database and two f ederal

dat abases, t he Cent r al I ndex Syst em and t he Nat i onal Cr i me

I nf or mat i on Cent er dat abases. Af t er r evi ewi ng t hese dat abases, he

"concl uded t hat Moral es was bor n i n Guat emal a, t hat she had made no

cl ai mof bei ng a Uni t ed St at es ci t i zen, and t hat t her e was pr obabl e

cause t o i ssue an I CE det ai ner agai nst her . " Second Donaghy Decl . ,

Dkt . 47- 1 at 2, No. 1: 12- cv- 00301- M- DLM ( D. R. I . f i l ed J an. 19,

2013) .

-20-


21/30

As we have sai d t i me and agai n, " [ w] e have j ur i sdi ct i on

over an i nt er l ocut ory appeal of a deni al of summary j udgment on

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y onl y i nsof ar as t he appeal r est s on l egal ,

r at her t han f act ual gr ounds. " Cady, 753 F. 3d at 350 ( ci t i ng

J ohnson v. J ones, 515 U. S. 304, 313 ( 1995) ) ; Goguen v. Al l en, 780

F. 3d 437, 438 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( di smi ssi ng i nt er l ocut or y appeal f or

want of appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on because def endant s' ar gument s " t ake

i ssue wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f act ual assessment s and do not

pr esent a pur e i ssue of l aw f or t hi s cour t ' s consi der at i on") ; Penn

v. Escor si o, 764 F. 3d 102, 111 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( hol di ng t hat

j ur i sdi ct i on f or i nter l ocut or y appeal was l acki ng wher e def endant s'

ar gument s r est ed on f act ual , not l egal , gr ounds) .

I n t hi s case, Mor al es di sput es t hat Donaghy and hi s

f el l ow I CE agent s conduct ed a suf f i ci ent dat abase sear ch wi t h

r egar d t o her ci t i zenshi p st at us. The compl ai nt al l eges t hat

"f eder al i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es mai nt ai n r ecor ds of nat ur al i zat i on

appl i cat i ons i n t hei r dat abases, " and " I CE coul d easi l y have

accessed t he i nf or mat i on i n i t s possessi on and conf i r med t hat Ms.

Mor al es was a U. S. ci t i zen bef or e subj ect i ng her t o a det ai ner i n

2009. " Compl . 40. She speci f i cal l y al l eges that Donaghy " f ai l ed

t o suf f i ci ent l y i nvest i gat e Ms. Mor al es s i mmi gr at i on st at us bef or e

i ssui ng t he det ai ner . " I d. 38. She adds t hat Donaghy "coul d

have easi l y conduct ed f ur t her r esear ch t o ver i f y whet her Ms.

Mor al es was a U. S. ci t i zen, but he f ai l ed t o do so. " I d. 39.

-21-


22/30

Al so, Mor al es has not had t he oppor t uni t y t o conduct any di scover y

t o assess t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he asser t i ons t hat Donaghy made i n

hi s decl ar at i ons.

Ther ef or e, Donaghy woul d l i ke us t o grant hi m qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y based on hi s own ver si on of t he f act s, even t hough t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not accept Donaghy' s ver si on of t he f act s. He

f ai l s t o under st and t hat i n exer ci si ng our i nt er l ocut or y appel l at e

j ur i sdi ct i on, we ar e r equi r ed t o " t ake, as gi ven, t he f act s t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t assumed when i t deni ed summary j udgment . "

J ohnson, 515 U. S. at 319.

Because Donaghy' s ar gument cl ear l y r est s on f actual

gr ounds and does not pr esent a pur e i ssue of l aw, hi s appeal on

t hi s ground "must be di smi ssed f or want of appel l at e

j ur i sdi ct i on. " 4 Goguen, 780 F. 3d at 438; see al so J ohnson, 515

U. S. at 317 ( st at i ng t hat "an i nt er l ocut or y appeal . . . makes

unwi se use of appel l at e cour t s' t i me" when i t "f or c[ es] t hem t o

deci de i n t he cont ext of a l ess devel oped r ecor d, an i ssue ver y

si mi l ar t o one they may wel l deci de anyway l at er , on a recor d t hat

wi l l per mi t a bet t er deci si on") .

2. Fifth Amendment Claim

Donaghy al so ar gues t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y on Moral es' s Fi f t h Amendment equal pr otect i on cl ai m.

4 Donaghy does not make any ar gument t hat probabl e causeexi st ed even on t he f act s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t assumed t o betrue.

-22-


23/30

Mor al es al l eges t hat Donaghy based hi s deci si on t o i ssue a det ai ner

agai nst her sol el y on her Guat emal an or i gi n and/ or her Spani sh

surname, whi ch vi ol ated her Fi f t h Amendment equal pr otect i on r i ght

t o be f r ee f r omdi scr i mi nat i on on t he basi s of r ace, et hni ci t y, and

nat i onal or i gi n. Donaghy cont ends t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y because, on t he f act s of t hi s case, he di d not det ai n

Mor al es sol el y on t he basi s of t hese pr ot ect ed t r ai t s, and,

t her ef or e, di d not vi ol at e her cl ear l y est abl i shed Fi f t h Amendment

r i ght s.

Rel yi ng once agai n on t he decl ar at i ons he at t ached t o hi s

mot i on f or summar y j udgment and r epl y br i ef i n t he di st r i ct cour t ,

Donaghy ar gues t hat he i ssued t he detai ner agai nst Moral es based

pr i mar i l y on t he dat abase sear ches t hat he conduct ed. He st at ed

t hat he i ssued the det ai ner af t er det er mi ni ng she was bor n i n

Guatemal a "[ b] ecause t here was no r ecor d [ t hat Moral es had] any

pr i or encount er wi t h I CE, no r ecor d of Mor al es appl yi ng f or

i mmi gr at i on benef i t s, i ncl udi ng nat ur al i zat i on, and evi dence of at

l east one al i as wi t h mul t i pl e soci al secur i t y number s. " Donaghy

Decl . , Dkt . 20- 3 at 2. Donaghy added t hat he "di d not i ssue t he

det ai ner t o di scr i mi nat e agai nst Mor al es on t he basi s of r ace,

et hni ci t y, or nat i onal or i gi n, or on any ot her basi s. " I d. He

cont ends t hat " t hi s appeal i nvol ves sol el y a quest i on of l aw"

r egar di ng "whet her an of f i cer may const i t ut i onal l y rel y, i n par t ,

on an i ndi vi dual ' s bi r t h i n a f or ei gn count r y i n det er mi ni ng

-23-


24/30

whet her t o i ssue a det ai ner . " Appel l ant s' Repl y Br . at 25

( emphasi s added) .

Donaghy' s cont ent i on mi sses t he poi nt . Hi s ar gument t hat

he onl y r el i ed "i n par t " on Mor al es' s f or ei gn bi r t h i s based

ent i r el y on hi s sel f - ser vi ng decl ar at i ons. Donaghy r equest s t hat

we r ej ect t he di st r i ct cour t ' s "f i ndi ng t hat he i ssued t he I CE

det ai ner sol el y because Ms. Mor al es was bor n i n a f or ei gn count r y, "

Appel l ant s' Br . at 33, based on hi s decl ar at i ons even t hough t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not credi t t hose decl ar at i ons i n denyi ng

Donaghy' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment . We si mpl y do not have

appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on t o ent er t ai n Donaghy' s ar gument at t hi s

t i me. See Escor i o, 764 F. 3d at 111 ( st at i ng t hat "we have no basi s

on whi ch t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on" because "nowher e i n t he

def endant s' br i ef does t here appear any devel oped argument t hat t he

def endant s are ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment even i f t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s concl usi ons about t he r ecor d wer e cor r ect " ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

B. Claim Against Chadbourne and Riccio

Chadbour ne and Ri cci o cont end t hat t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on Moral es' s Four t h Amendment supervi sor y

l i abi l i t y cl ai m agai nst t hem. I n r evi ewi ng t he di str i ct cour t ' s

deni al of t hei r mot i on t o di smi ss, we anal yze, f i r st , whet her t he

f act s al l eged i n t he compl ai nt "show t he def endant s' conduct

-24-


25/30

vi ol at ed a const i t ut i onal r i ght , " and second, whet her t hat r i ght

was "cl ear l y est abl i shed" i n 2009. Sant ana, 342 F. 3d at 23.

Mor al es al l eges t hat I CE super vi sor s Chadbour ne and

Ri cci o vi ol ated her Four t h Amendment r i ghts because t hey knew or

wer e del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o t he f act t hat t hei r subor di nat es

r out i nel y i ssued i mmi gr at i on det ai ner s agai nst nat ur al i zed U. S.

ci t i zens wi t hout pr obabl e cause, and f or mul at ed or condoned

pol i ci es per mi t t i ng t he i ssuance of det ai ner s wi t hout pr obabl e

cause. Def endant s ar gue t hat Mor al es has f ai l ed t o al l ege

suf f i ci ent f acts t o pl ausi bl y st at e a super vi sor y l i abi l i t y cl ai m.

A super vi sor may be hel d l i abl e f or t he const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i ons commi t t ed by hi s subor di nat es wher e "an af f i r mat i ve l i nk

bet ween t he behavi or of a subor di nat e and t he act i on or i nact i on of

hi s super vi sor exi st s such t hat t he super vi sor ' s conduct l ed

i nexor abl y t o t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. " Mal donado v.

Font anes, 568 F. 3d 263, 275 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . A pl ai nt i f f can est abl i sh t hat " af f i r mat i ve l i nk"

by al l egi ng t hat t he super vi sor was "a pr i mar y vi ol at or or di r ect

par t i ci pant i n t he r i ght s- vi ol at i ng i nci dent , " or t hat "a

r esponsi bl e of f i ci al super vi ses, t r ai ns or hi r es a subor di nat e wi t h

del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence t owar d t he possi bi l i t y t hat def i ci ent

per f or mance of t he t ask event ual l y may cont r i but e t o a ci vi l r i ght s

depr i vat i on. " Sanchez v. Per ei r a- Cast i l l o, 590 F. 3d 31, 49 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

-25-


26/30

Mor al es al l eges t hat I CE agent s i n Rhode I sl and

mai nt ai ned a pr act i ce of "r out i nel y col l abor at [ i ng] " wi t h st at e l aw

enf or cement aut hor i t i es " t o i ssue and enf or ce det ai ner s agai nst

U. S. ci t i zens, part i cul ar l y nat ural i zed U. S. ci t i zens, . . .

wi t hout suf f i ci ent i nvest i gat i on i nt o t hei r ci t i zenshi p or

i mmi gr at i on st at us and wi t hout pr obabl e cause to bel i eve t hat t hey

ar e nonci t i zens subj ect t o r emoval and det ent i on. " Compl . 67.

The compl ai nt f ur t her al l eges t hat when an i ndi vi dual i s ar r est ed

at t he ACI and "pr ovi de[ s] a f or ei gn count r y of bi r t h, has a

f or ei gn- soundi ng l ast name, speaks Engl i sh wi t h an accent , and/ or

appear s t o be Hi spani c, " I CE agent s "of t en f ai l suf f i ci ent l y t o

i nvest i gat e t he ar r est ee s ci t i zenshi p or i mmi gr at i on backgr ound

bef or e i ssui ng an i mmi gr at i on det ai ner . . . wi t hout pr obabl e cause

t o bel i eve t hat t he i ndi vi dual i s a nonci t i zen subj ect t o det ent i on

and r emoval by I CE. " I d. 69- 70.

The compl ai nt f ur t her al l eges t hat Chadbour ne and Ri cci o,

as t he heads of t he I CE Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce and Rhode I sl and

sub- of f i ce, "knew or shoul d have known that t hei r subor di nat es,

i ncl udi ng Def endant Donaghy, r egul ar l y . . . i ssued i mmi gr at i on

det ai ner s agai nst i ndi vi dual s such as Ms. Mor al es, wi t hout

conduct i ng suf f i ci ent i nvest i gat i on and wi t hout pr obabl e cause to

bel i eve t hat t he subj ect of t he i mmi gr at i on det ai ner was a

nonci t i zen subj ect t o r emoval and det ent i on. " I d. 81. The

compl ai nt adds t hat Chadbour ne and Ri cci o " f ormul ated, i mpl ement ed,

-26-


27/30

encour aged, or wi l l f ul l y i gnor ed [ I CE' s] pol i ci es and cust oms [ i n

Rhode I sl and] wi t h del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence t o t he hi gh r i sk of

vi ol at i ng Ms. Mor al es s const i t ut i onal r i ght s" and f ai l ed t o

"change[ ] t hese har mf ul pol i ci es and cust oms" al t hough t hey "had

t he power and t he aut hor i t y t o change [ t hem] by, f or i nst ance,

t r ai ni ng of f i cer s such as Def endant Donaghy t o per f or man adequat e

i nvest i gat i on i nt o i ndi vi dual s' ci t i zenshi p and i mmi gr at i on st at us

bef or e i ssui ng det ai ner s. " I d. 84- 85.

Rel yi ng on t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Ashcrof t v.

I qbal , 556 U. S. 662 ( 2009) , Chadbour ne and Ri cci o cont end t hat

Mor al es' s al l egat i ons ar e concl usor y and f ai l t o est abl i sh an

af f i r mat i ve l i nk bet ween Donaghy' s behavi or and t hei r act i on or

i nact i on. I n I qbal , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ,

J avai d I qbal , had not al l eged a pl ausi bl e super vi sor y l i abi l i t y

cl ai m agai nst At t or ney Gener al J ohn Ashcr of t and FBI Di r ect or

Rober t Muel l er under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 8. See 556

U. S. at 680- 82. I qbal al l eged t hat Ashcr of t and Muel l er "knew of ,

condoned, and wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y agr eed t o subj ect " hi m t o

har sh condi t i ons of conf i nement "as a mat t er of pol i cy, sol el y on

account of [ hi s] r el i gi on, r ace, and/ or nat i onal or i gi n and f or no

l egi t i mat e penol ogi cal i nt er est . " I d. at 680 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) . The Supr eme Cour t rej ected " [ t ] hese bare

asser t i ons" as concl usor y because t hey "amount t o nothi ng more than

' a f or mul ai c reci t at i on of t he el ement s' of a const i t ut i onal

-27-


28/30

di scri mi nat i on cl ai m. " I d. at 681 ( quot i ng Bel l At l . Cor p. v.

Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 555 ( 2007) ) .

We r ej ect Chadbour ne and Ri cci o' s argument because,

unl i ke t he concl usor y al l egat i ons i n I qbal , t he al l egat i ons i n

Mor al es' s compl ai nt ar e based on f act ual assert i ons t hat est abl i sh

t he af f i r mat i ve l i nk necessar y t o suf f i ci ent l y pl ead a super vi sor y

l i abi l i t y cl ai m. Mor al es al l eges that , as a U. S. ci t i zen, she has

been det ai ned pur suant t o an i mmi gr at i on det ai ner "on at l east t wo

separate occasi ons" i n J ul y 2004 and May 2009. Compl . 11- 13.

Fur t her mor e, dur i ng the second encount er , Mor al es i nf or med I CE

agent s t hat "she had been err oneousl y detai ned by I CE on a pr evi ous

occasi on . . . and t hat she was af r ai d t hat i t may happen agai n. "

I d. 61. The I CE agent s "r ei nf or ced [ her ] f ear , st at i ng t hat i t

coul d happen agai n i n t he f ut ur e" even t hough t hey had j ust

ver i f i ed she was a U. S. ci t i zen. I d. The agent s "never t ol d

Mor al es t hat I CE woul d cor r ect t he pr obl em or t ake any st eps t o

ensure t hat she woul d not be subj ect t o wr ongf ul det ent i on agai n i n

t he f ut ur e. " I d. Fi nal l y, af t er Mor al es' s r el ease, J oan Mat hi eu,

an i mmi gr at i on at t or ney, cont act ed I CE' s Rhode I sl and of f i ce t o

l ear n more about why an i mmi gr at i on detai ner had been i ssued

agai nst Mor al es. I d. 66. An I CE agent t ol d Mat hi eu t hat " t he

er r oneous det ent i on of U. S. ci t i zens" pur suant t o i mmi gr at i on

det ai ner s "happens not i nf r equent l y. " I d. The agent added t hat

"I CE r out i nel y i ssues det ai ner s" agai nst nat ur al i zed U. S. ci t i zens

-28-


29/30

and t hat "i f Ms. Mor al es i s ar r est ed agai n, I CE wi l l l i kel y put a

det ai ner on her . " I d.

Based on t hese det ai l ed al l egat i ons - - combi ned wi t h t he

pr evi ousl y hi ghl i ght ed al l egat i ons di scussi ng Chadbour ne and

Ri cci o' s speci f i c rol es - - and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n

f avor of Moral es ( whi ch we must do at t he mot i on t o di smi ss st age) ,

i t i s pl ausi bl e t hat Chadbour ne and Ri cci o ei t her f or mul at ed and

i mpl ement ed a pol i cy of i ssui ng det ai ner s agai nst nat ur al i zed U. S.

ci t i zens wi t hout pr obabl e cause or wer e del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o

t he f act t hat t hei r subor di nat es wer e i ssui ng det ai ner s agai nst

nat ur al i zed U. S. ci t i zens wi t hout pr obabl e cause. Thus, Mor al es

has suf f i ci ent l y al l eged t hat Chadbour ne and Ri cci o, t hr ough t hei r

act i on or i nact i on, per mi t t ed t hei r subor di nat es, i ncl udi ng

Donaghy, t o i ssue det ai ner s wi t hout pr obabl e cause i n vi ol at i on of

t he Four t h Amendment . 5

5 We al so f i nd t hat t hi s Four t h Amendment r i ght was " cl ear l yest abl i shed" i n 2009. Sant ana, 342 F. 3d at 23. As expl ai nedabove, t he l aw was cl ear l y est abl i shed i n 2009 t hat an i mmi gr at i onof f i cer needed pr obabl e cause t o i ssue a det ai ner . Fur t her mor e,t he l aw was al so cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat a super vi sor may be hel dl i abl e f or unconst i t ut i onal act i ons of a subor di nat e i f he"super vi ses, t r ai ns, or hi r es a subor di nat e wi t h del i ber at ei ndi f f er ence t owar d t he possi bi l i t y t hat def i ci ent per f or mance oft he t ask event ual l y may cont r i but e t o a ci vi l r i ght s depr i vat i on. "Cami l o- Robl es v. Zapat a, 175 F. 3d 41, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . A

super vi sor may al so be hel d l i abl e f or " f or mul at i ng a pol i cy, orengagi ng i n a cust om, t hat l eads t o t he chal l enged occur r ence. "Mal donado- Deni s v. Cast i l l o- Rodr i guez, 23 F. 3d 576, 582 ( 1st Ci r .1994) . Al t hough t her e wer e no speci f i c cases i n 2009 di r ect l yaddr essi ng a super vi sor ' s l i abi l i t y wi t h r egar d t o t he i ssuance ofi mmi gr at i on det ai ner s, i t i s beyond debat e t hat a super vi sor whoei t her aut hor i zed or was del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o hi s

-29-


30/30

III.

For t he r easons st at ed above, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on Mor al es' s Four t h Amendment

cl ai m agai nst Donaghy on t he gr ound t hat t he l aw was cl ear l y

est abl i shed i n 2009 t hat an I CE agent r equi r ed pr obabl e cause t o

i ssue an i mmi gr at i on detai ner . We di smi ss Donaghy' s appeal on hi s

Four t h Amendment argument r egardi ng t he ci r cumst ances surr oundi ng

t he i ssuance of t he detai ner and hi s Fi f t h Amendment equal

pr ot ect i on ar gument f or want of j ur i sdi ct i on. We al so af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on Mor al es' s Four t h

Amendment super vi sory l i abi l i t y cl ai m agai nst Chadbour ne and

Ri cci o. We r emand f or pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

So order ed.

subor di nat e' s i ssuance of a det ai ner wi t hout pr obabl e cause coul dbe hel d l i abl e f or vi ol at i ng t he Four t h Amendment . See Hal l , 817F. 2d at 925 ( "The f act t hat no cour t had put t hese pi eces t oget heri n the pr eci se manner we do t oday does not absol ve def endant s ofl i abi l i t y. " ) .

-30-

morales v. chadbourne, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents