Quinonez v. Does 1 through 5

Background

René Quiñonez owns and manages Movement Ink LLC, a screen-printing business. The amended complaint alleged that Movement Ink printed masks carrying political messages, including “STOP KILLING BLACK PEOPLE” and “DEFUND POLICE,” and shipped them to organizers in several cities. Four packages sent to organizers in New York City, Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, and St. Louis were allegedly seized, detained, and searched by postal officials. The packages were delayed, and the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants acted because the packages contained masks with political statements and harmed their business.

The plaintiffs asserted two claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act: trespass to chattels and interference with prospective economic relations. They also asserted two Fourth Amendment claims against individual defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, a decision recognizing a damages remedy against federal officials in some circumstances for constitutional violations. The court had previously dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims and allowed these four claims to be amended.

Claims Against the United States

The court denied the United States’ motion to dismiss the trespass-to-chattels claim insofar as it was based on the alleged search. The Federal Tort Claims Act generally waives the United States’ immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees, subject to exceptions. The court had previously held that the alleged seizure or detention was barred by an exception concerning detained goods, but it had left open whether a sufficiently pleaded unconstitutional search could avoid the discretionary-function exception.

The court held that the amended complaint plausibly alleged that the packages were opened and searched. The complaint relied in part on internal notes stating that the packages contained “BLM MASKS.” Although the United States offered another possible explanation—that officials learned about the masks from news coverage—the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegation that the packages were searched was plausible at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The complaint also alleged that the search occurred without a warrant, and the United States did not argue that a warrant exception justified it. The court therefore concluded that the alleged search could fall outside the discretionary-function exception because government officials do not have discretion to violate the Constitution. The trespass claim based on the alleged search may proceed against the United States.

The court also allowed the interference-with-prospective-economic-relations claim to proceed in part. The plaintiffs had to plausibly allege an economic relationship with a third party, the defendant’s knowledge of that relationship, intentional disruption, actual disruption, and resulting economic harm, along with an independently wrongful act. The court found that the allegations plausibly connected Robin Lee to postal officials who knew Quiñonez and his business. That supported an allegation that Lee knew of an economic relationship between the plaintiffs and the package recipients.

The court held, however, that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the Postal Inspection Service employees knew Quiñonez or his business. The interference claim was therefore dismissed with prejudice to the extent it depended on the acts of those employees. The court granted limited leave to amend so the plaintiffs could substitute Lee’s name for one of the Doe defendants; otherwise, the claim could proceed based on the alleged acts of Postal Service defendants. The court also granted the government’s request to strike paragraphs seeking declaratory relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act, stating that the statute provides money damages as the available relief.

Claims Against the Individual Defendants

The court granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss. Counts 4 and 7 alleged Fourth Amendment violations under Bivens based on the alleged seizure and search of the packages. The court concluded that these claims arose in a new Bivens context because the Supreme Court had not recognized a Bivens claim against postal workers for searching or seizing mailed goods.

The court also found special factors counseling against extending Bivens to this setting. These included the Postal Service’s grievance process and the potential systemwide consequences of allowing damages claims involving postal employees’ handling of mailed packages. The plaintiffs’ arguments that the grievance process was inadequate did not persuade the court, and the court stated that the adequacy of an alternative remedy was a determination for Congress rather than the federal courts. Counts 4 and 7 were dismissed with prejudice because the court concluded that no additional facts could plausibly save them.

Disposition

The individual defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The United States’ motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part, with limited leave to amend to substitute Lee for one Doe defendant. The amended complaint was due within 20 days of the order. Judge William H. Orrick also set a case-management conference for August 15, 2023.