Madej Manchanda v. Lewis

Background

Rahul D. Manchanda and Sylwia Ewelina Madej Manchanda, whom the opinion identifies as husband and wife, sued Andrea Lewis, an immigration services officer; Susan Quintana, the director of the New York City field office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; that agency; and unidentified defendants. Their claims arose from a February 13, 2020 interview concerning Sylwia Ewelina Madej Manchanda’s application to become a permanent resident. They alleged that immigration officers mocked them while they waited, that Lewis suggested their marriage was fraudulent, mocked Rahul Manchanda’s profession, and made subtly racist comments, and that the defendants retaliated after the couple complained to federal agencies.

The amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ee-1(e), the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and a constitutional damages claim under the remedy recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The defendants moved to dismiss the entire amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, dismissing the § 1983, § 2000ee-1(e), and Bivens claims with prejudice and dismissing the Federal Tort Claims Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs objected.

Court’s analysis

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and overruled the plaintiffs’ objections. It agreed that § 1983 does not apply to the federal government or federal officials acting under federal law. It also agreed that § 2000ee-1(e) does not create a private right to sue. Finally, it agreed that extending the Bivens remedy to due-process challenges involving adjustment-of-status applications would be inappropriate. Those three groups of claims were therefore dismissed with prejudice.

The court dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claim without prejudice because the plaintiffs had not exhausted the required administrative remedies. Before filing that type of lawsuit, a claimant must present a proper claim to the relevant federal agency and receive a written final denial, or wait six months without a final determination. The court held that the plaintiffs’ February 13 complaint and their appeal to the immigration agency were not formal claims for money damages, and that their Standard Form 95 had been filed less than six months before they began the lawsuit. The agency’s alleged telephone statement that it would take action also was not a final denial or disposition.

The court likewise dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act claim without prejudice. The plaintiffs challenged the treatment they received, the scheduling of a separate-spouse interview, and an alleged delay in deciding the permanent-residence application. The court held that scheduling the separate-spouse interview was only a step in an ongoing investigation, not final agency action. It also found that the plaintiffs had not alleged enough facts to show unreasonable delay, including because they did not state when the application was filed. The court noted that a later agency decision, or an unreasonable delay, might support an Administrative Procedure Act claim.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ § 1983, § 2000ee-1(e), and Bivens claims were dismissed with prejudice. Their Federal Tort Claims Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims were dismissed without prejudice. The amended complaint was dismissed, and the clerk was directed to close the motion.