Ojo v. Decker

Background

Olukayode David Ojo, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Federal Tort Claims Act. The case was transferred and divided among federal courts because Ojo’s amended pleading asserted unrelated claims arising from detention facilities and immigration proceedings in different districts. The District of New Jersey transferred the immigration-related claims to the Southern District of New York and transferred claims concerning the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility to the Northern District of New York. Olatunbosun Grace Ojo later joined as a plaintiff and asserted claims arising from events outside this district.

Ojo alleged that Thomas Decker, identified in the opinion as the New York Field Office Director for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, failed to intervene in Ojo’s detention from April 12, 2018, through December 10, 2020. Ojo connected that detention to an earlier agreement involving a reduced bond amount during his first immigration-related detention. The opinion states that Ojo was detained again after officials issued a new notice to appear based on his federal conviction. The District of New Jersey had previously ruled that the earlier agreement did not prevent the government from taking Ojo back into custody after a change in circumstances.

Claims Concerning Other Districts

The court concluded that Ojo’s second amended complaint reasserted claims arising in the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of New York, even though the court had granted leave to amend only to assert claims arising in the Southern District of New York. The court also found that Olatunbosun Grace Ojo’s claims arose from events related to those out-of-district claims.

The court dismissed Ojo’s and Olatunbosun Grace Ojo’s claims against all defendants except Decker, without prejudice to litigating those claims in the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of New York.

Claims Against Decker

Because Decker was alleged to be a federal employee who violated constitutional rights, the court analyzed the claims under Bivens, which can allow certain damages claims against federal officials for constitutional violations. A plaintiff must allege that the federal official personally participated in the violation; a supervisor generally cannot be held liable solely because someone working under that supervisor acted unlawfully.

The court construed Ojo’s complaint as seeking relief for the treatment he received during the 2018–2020 detention based on Decker’s alleged failure to intervene. The court found that Ojo did not allege Decker’s personal involvement in Ojo’s first detention, during which the Department of Homeland Security agreed to a substantially reduced bond in exchange for dismissal of Ojo’s first detention challenge.

The court further held that, even assuming Decker had been personally involved, Ojo had not alleged facts showing that Decker caused the claimed constitutional injuries during the later detention. The opinion states that the later detention followed a new notice to appear that included Ojo’s federal conviction after that conviction became final. The court therefore concluded that Ojo failed to state a Bivens claim that Decker violated Ojo’s constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court dismissed Ojo’s and Olatunbosun Grace Ojo’s claims against all defendants except Decker, without prejudice to litigation in the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of New York. It dismissed Ojo’s immigration claims against Decker for failure to state a claim. The opinion also directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Olatunbosun Grace Ojo and noted that Ojo had consented to electronic service.