Lovelady v. United States Customs and Border Protection

Background

Christopher Lovelady, a pro se plaintiff, sued the United States of America and United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) over an encounter with CBP officers at San Francisco International Airport after he got off a flight from Europe. Lovelady alleged that he has Multiple Hereditary Osteochondromas, a genetic bone condition. He said that he declined to answer a CBP officer’s questions about goods he might have brought from Europe, after which additional officers became involved and allegedly manhandled him in a way that aggravated his condition. He alleged that an officer later apologized and that he was released from the airport.

Lovelady brought claims under the Fourth Amendment and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as claims for false imprisonment, assault, and battery. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint plausibly states a claim.

Fourth Amendment claim

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim. It held that Lovelady could not bring a damages claim against the United States or CBP officers for alleged excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The court also concluded that Lovelady had not adequately alleged standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief because he did not identify an official policy or ongoing practice creating a realistic possibility that CBP would subject him to the alleged conduct again.

Rehabilitation Act claim

The court dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim. It stated that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for damages claims under Section 504. The court also found that Lovelady had not alleged a CBP policy that discriminated against him solely because of his disability or facts showing that similar harm was likely to happen again, which the court said was necessary for the requested declaratory or injunctive relief.

Federal Tort Claims Act claims

The remaining claims—false imprisonment, assault, and battery—were brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The court stated that the United States was the only proper defendant for these claims and that the FTCA provided only money damages. Consequently, CBP was dismissed from counts three, four, and five, and the court would consider those claims against the United States only to the extent they sought damages. California tort law applied because the alleged conduct occurred in San Francisco.

The court dismissed the false-imprisonment claim because the complaint did not plausibly allege anything beyond a temporary detention during a routine border search. For the assault and battery claim, the court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the officers used unreasonable force or threatened to do so. The court accepted the alleged effects of the force on Lovelady’s medical condition but found that the alleged force fell short of conduct previously considered unreasonable at the border. The court also found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the officers recognized or acted on Lovelady’s condition before the alleged battery occurred.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Lovelady could file an amended complaint consistent with the order by June 21, 2024. The court stated that no new parties or claims could be added without prior court consent and that failure to meet the deadline or comply with the order would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge James Donato issued the order.