Amador v. City of New York

Background

Luis Amador sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, Detective Cruz M. Ramos, Badge #5506 of the New York City Police Department Drug Enforcement Task Force of the 46th Precinct, and John and Jane Doe police officers. He alleged that the defendants violated federal and state civil-rights laws when they arrested, imprisoned, and prosecuted him. His claims against Ramos included false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and New York state law.

Amador filed the case in Supreme Court, Bronx County, on August 13, 2019. Ramos later removed it to the Southern District of New York. The Government, acting through the United States Attorney’s Office, stated that Ramos had been a deputized Drug Enforcement Administration task-force officer and had acted within the scope of her federal employment during the events at issue. The United States Attorney therefore filed a certification under the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, stating that Ramos was acting within the scope of her federal employment for purposes of Amador’s claims.

Issue

The issue was whether the federal court could remand, or return, the case to state court despite the Attorney General’s certification that Ramos acted within the scope of federal employment.

Amador argued that removal was improper because Ramos worked as a New York City employee, the later prosecution involved state law, removal was untimely, the other defendants had not consented to removal, and removal would be unfair. The Government argued that the certification conclusively established the scope of employment for purposes of removal and prevented remand.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that the Westfall Act provides immunity from certain state-law tort actions to federal employees acting within the scope of their employment and permits removal of such cases to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2), an Attorney General certification that the defendant acted within the scope of federal employment conclusively establishes that fact for purposes of removal.

Because the United States Attorney had issued the certification under authority delegated by the Attorney General, the court held that the Westfall Act applied for removal purposes. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Osborn v. Haley, the court stated that the certification left it without authority to return the case to state court.

The court distinguished between removal and substitution. The certification was conclusive only for determining the forum. It did not prevent later judicial review of whether Ramos was actually covered by the Westfall Act or whether she acted within the scope of federal employment. Those questions could matter if the United States later sought to replace Ramos as a party.

The court also rejected Amador’s other arguments. It concluded that the usual 30-day removal deadline did not control because the Westfall Act allowed removal at any time before trial. The usual requirement that all defendants consent to removal also did not apply because this case was not removed solely under the general removal statute. Finally, the court found that the amount of discovery already conducted and Amador’s fairness arguments did not provide a legal basis for remand.

Disposition

The court denied Amador’s motion to remand and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 15. It also directed the parties to file a joint letter within two weeks stating their positions on the next steps in the litigation. The opinion did not decide the merits of Amador’s false-arrest, false-imprisonment, malicious-prosecution, or other claims.