M.Q. v. Kenneth Genalo

Background

M.Q. alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained her, transported her while she was heavily restrained, and failed to provide timely medical care after she injured her ankle. She also alleged that she was held in unsanitary solitary-confinement conditions and did not receive adequate mental-health care. ICE later released her under an Order of Supervision, then revoked that release and detained her again. M.Q. alleged that the second detention was retaliation for her public criticism of her detention and advocacy concerning immigration detention.

M.Q.’s Third Amended Complaint asserted Federal Tort Claims Act claims for assault and battery, negligence, abuse of process, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The United States moved to dismiss the abuse-of-process and emotional-distress claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint adequately states a claim.

Discretionary-Function Exception

The Federal Tort Claims Act generally waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain tort claims, but the discretionary-function exception preserves immunity for some discretionary government actions. The Government argued that ICE’s decision to revoke M.Q.’s Order of Supervision was discretionary and therefore protected.

The court held that the exception did not apply where a plaintiff plausibly alleges that a federal employee engaged in unconstitutional conduct. Although the governing regulations gave ICE discretion to revoke supervised release, the court followed Second Circuit precedent holding that federal officials do not have discretion to violate the Constitution.

The court further held that M.Q. plausibly pleaded First Amendment retaliation. She alleged protected public speech about her detention, an adverse action in the form of revoking her supervised release and detaining her, and facts supporting a possible causal connection. Those facts included the timing of her advocacy, ICE’s allegedly inconsistent explanations for the re-detention, and the alleged absence of a valid travel document when ICE gave its stated reason for revoking her release. The court therefore denied the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Abuse of Process

The court did not decide whether revoking an Order of Supervision qualifies as “legal process” for purposes of New York’s abuse-of-process law. Instead, it held that M.Q. failed to allege an improper purpose. Retaliatory intent alone was insufficient because an abuse-of-process claim requires an improper use of the process itself or a collateral objective beyond the legitimate purpose of the process.

The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the abuse-of-process claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Emotional-Distress Claims

The court dismissed M.Q.’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because it duplicated her other tort claims. The alleged conduct—failure to provide adequate medical care, unsanitary confinement, and revocation of her supervised release—was also the basis for her assault-and-battery, negligence, and abuse-of-process claims. The court did not decide the Government’s other arguments concerning that claim. It granted the motion to dismiss the intentional-infliction claim, which was dismissed without prejudice.

The court declined to treat M.Q.’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim as duplicative. It construed that claim as concerning allegedly inadequate medical care during her first period in ICE custody and denied the Government’s motion to dismiss it.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss M.Q.’s abuse-of-process and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice. In all other respects, the motion was denied, and the parties were directed to proceed with pretrial matters on the surviving claims.