Lopez v. United States

Background

Rosa Lopez is the legal guardian of V.S., a minor, and the successor in interest to the estate of Victor Sanchez Brito. She sued the United States and GEO Group, Inc., asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law arising from Sanchez Brito’s 2015 arrest and detention.

One government claim alleged negligence based on a theory that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers failed to protect Sanchez Brito from harsh detention conditions, including prolonged solitary confinement. The government asked the court to dismiss that claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court’s July 29, 2024 order held that the claim was barred by sovereign immunity, meaning the government had not consented to be sued on that claim, and dismissed it without leave to amend.

Lopez then sought permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration of that part of the earlier order. That rule requires reasonable diligence and one of specified grounds, such as newly discovered facts or law, a material difference that could not previously have been known with reasonable diligence, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The rule also bars a party from simply rearguing matters already asserted.

Arguments and Analysis

Lopez argued that the court had failed to consider her arguments about the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Olson. She asserted that Olson barred dismissal of Federal Tort Claims Act claims merely because the alleged conduct involved an inherently governmental function. She also argued that authority concerning unsafe conditions under California tort law showed that her claim was cognizable.

The court found that Lopez had not shown a manifest failure to consider arguments properly presented before the earlier order. In her original briefing, she had not addressed the government’s cited authorities concerning the absence of a private analogue for decisions about placing a detainee in solitary confinement. The court also found that Lopez had not adequately applied Olson to this claim in her earlier briefing; her discussion of related authority had addressed a different claim.

The court further stated that Lopez had cited authority about landlords’ and hotel owners’ duties to maintain reasonably safe property, but had not cited cases applying that duty to detention facilities. The court therefore characterized the reconsideration request as an improper attempt to present arguments that could have been raised in opposition to the original motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court denied Lopez’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The opinion did not alter the earlier dismissal of the conditions-of-confinement negligence claim.