Reeves v. United States of America

Background

Michael Reeves, described in the opinion as a native and citizen of Liberia, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that permits certain claims against the federal government. He alleged, among other things, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers falsely arrested him and used excessive force during a 2018 arrest. The opinion’s factual background says the arrest occurred outside his home and involved an alleged takedown, chokehold, and serious injury to his right shoulder.

Reeves had previously been ordered removed from the United States. After he unlawfully reentered, immigration officials reinstated that removal order in 2014. An asylum officer later found that he had a reasonable fear of persecution if returned to Liberia, so his request for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture was referred to an immigration judge. Reeves was released on bond while that matter was pending.

Reeves failed to appear at a 2016 withholding hearing. The immigration judge marked his application as abandoned and wrote that the matter was returned to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE later issued a warrant of removal and arrested Reeves in 2018.

The Government’s motion

The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear a case. It relied primarily on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which bars courts from hearing claims arising from the Attorney General’s decision or action to execute removal orders.

The Government also argued that the Federal Tort Claims Act preserved the United States’ immunity for employees’ actions taken with due care while executing removal laws, that constitutional claims were barred by sovereign immunity, and alternatively that the complaint failed to state a claim. Because the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it did not address those remaining arguments.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the jurisdiction challenge as a factual challenge. It therefore considered evidence outside the complaint and placed the burden on Reeves to prove the jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence.

The court explained that a reinstated removal order is generally not subject to reopening or review and requires removal. It also recognized that such an order is not final while withholding-only proceedings are pending. The central question was whether Reeves’s withholding proceedings remained pending after he failed to appear.

The court concluded that the immigration judge’s order terminated the withholding proceedings rather than administratively closing them. It relied on three points: the order’s use of the word “abandoned,” its statement that the matter was returned to the Department of Homeland Security, and regulations stating that an application must be denied when an applicant fails to appear. The court also noted that Reeves had not shown that a stay of removal was entered.

The court rejected Reeves’s reliance on later efforts to reopen or re-calendar the proceedings. It held that those later events did not change the validity and finality of the reinstated removal order at the time of the arrest. It also stated that an immigration judge’s limited authority to decide withholding eligibility did not establish that the proceedings had been administratively closed.

Ruling

The court found that Reeves was subject to a valid and final removal order when ICE arrested him and that the arrest followed a decision or action to execute that order. It held that § 1252(g) deprived the court of jurisdiction over “any cause or claim” arising from the arrest, including the false-arrest, excessive-force, and other claims.

The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed the case, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the identified motions and close the case, and did not decide the Government’s alternative arguments.