Amador v. United States Of America

Background

Luis Amador sued the United States, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and DEA Special Agent Marlow Luna. He alleged that Luna and a New York Police Department detective arrested him on August 2, 2017, handcuffed him, threw him to the ground, questioned him about drugs, and searched the apartment where he rented a bedroom. Amador alleged that drugs were found in the apartment but not in his bedroom. He was later prosecuted for drug-trafficking charges, detained for approximately 16 months, and acquitted by a jury.

The amended complaint asserted false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and constitutional claims against Luna under the remedy recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Rulings on the Federal Tort Claims Act Claims

The court held that the DEA was not a suable entity for the claims alleged. It explained that Federal Tort Claims Act claims may be brought only against the United States, while Bivens claims may be brought only against individual federal employees. The court therefore treated the Federal Tort Claims Act claims as claims against the United States and the Bivens claims as claims against Luna.

The court dismissed the false-arrest claim against the United States as untimely. It held that the claim accrued on the date of Amador’s arrest, August 2, 2017, and that he did not begin this action until December 14, 2020, outside the applicable two-year period. The court rejected Amador’s reliance on a tolling statute because his earlier lawsuit had been voluntarily dismissed, not dismissed for failure to first present the claim to the federal agency. The court also found no basis for equitable tolling, reasoning that the amended complaint did not indicate that Luna’s federal status had been difficult to identify.

The court dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act malicious-prosecution claim for failure to state a claim. Under the law applied by the court, a grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause. Amador alleged generally that Luna had furthered lies before the grand jury, but he did not identify specific false statements or facts showing that the indictment was obtained through fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence, or other bad-faith conduct. The court also concluded that the allegations did not adequately show that Luna acted with an improper motive.

Rulings on the Constitutional Claims

The court dismissed as untimely the Bivens claims concerning unreasonable search and seizure or excessive force, arrest without probable cause, false imprisonment, false charges, and equal protection. The claims concerning the arrest, search, and alleged force accrued in August 2017. The false-imprisonment claim accrued when Amador was arraigned, approximately two days after his arrest. The false-charges claim accrued no later than the arrest or arraignment. The equal-protection claim was also dismissed because it was conclusory and, to the extent it concerned the arrest, untimely.

The court treated Amador’s claims concerning malicious prosecution and denial of a fair trial as timely because they accrued when he was acquitted on December 5, 2018. It nevertheless dismissed both claims. For malicious prosecution, the court relied on the same deficiencies identified in the Federal Tort Claims Act claim: Amador did not provide specific allegations showing that Luna supplied false or fraudulent information to the grand jury or acted with actual malice. For the fair-trial claim, the court held that the allegation that Luna “furthered” lies before the grand jury was too broad and conclusory and did not identify particular false statements made to prosecutors or the grand jury.

Disposition

Judge Castel granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.