Azucena v. Runjyin

Background

Caleb J. Azucena brought a damages action under Bivens against United States Customs and Border Protection agent Runjyin. Azucena alleged that on February 6, 2022, at San Francisco International Airport, Runjyin grabbed his penis and buttock during a pat-down. After Azucena asked whether the pat-down was finished, Runjyin allegedly conducted two more pat-downs and again grabbed those areas. Azucena alleged that his passport was confiscated, he could not reach his destination, and his airline ticket was not refunded. He requested “any relief.”

Azucena also applied to proceed without paying filing fees. The court found that he could not pay the fees, costs, or security required to pursue the action.

Screening and Service

Because Azucena sought to proceed without paying fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The screening standard is the same as the standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court must dismiss a complaint that does not include enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court concluded that, read liberally, the complaint stated a facially plausible Bivens claim and satisfied the screening requirement. A Bivens claim is a damages claim against a federal officer for certain constitutional violations. The court did not make a final determination on liability or the truth of the allegations.

Order

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Azucena’s application to proceed without paying fees. The court found that the complaint stated a cognizable Bivens claim against Runjyin. The Clerk was ordered to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve the operative complaint and the order on Runjyin without prepayment of fees.

The court ordered Runjyin to file and serve a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, or to notify the court if the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. Azucena’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and Runjyin’s reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. No hearing would be held on the motion. The court also addressed discovery, service of filings, address updates, extensions of time, and Azucena’s responsibility to prosecute the case.