Barry v. United States

Background

Amadou Barry brought this Federal Tort Claims Act case against the United States seeking damages under Texas law. He alleged claims for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence arising from his initial confinement in an adult detention facility after he presented himself at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum in October 2017.

Barry told U.S. Customs and Border Protection that he was 17 and presented a copy of a Guinean birth certificate showing that age. He had previously told Panamanian authorities that he was 25. According to the complaint, CBP did not immediately notify the Office of Refugee Resettlement that he claimed to be a minor and placed him in expedited removal proceedings. He was transferred to the Port Isabel Detention Center, an adult facility in Texas, where he spent four months. He was later transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement and was released to a cousin in New York in May 2018.

The Motions

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It argued that the complaint did not state claims recognized under Texas law and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a negligence-per-se theory. In the alternative, the United States moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Barry opposed both branches of the motion. He argued that he adequately pleaded his Texas-law claims and that his negligence-per-se theory was analogous to negligent undertaking. He also argued that his choice of New York should receive substantial deference, that traveling to Texas would be more difficult and expensive for him, and that returning to Texas could harm his mental health and interfere with his college studies.

Transfer Analysis

Section 1404(a) permits a federal district court to transfer a civil action to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court first determined that the case could have been filed in the Southern District of Texas because Barry crossed the border and was detained there.

The court then evaluated the circumstances favoring transfer. It found that all of the operative events alleged in the complaint occurred in Texas, which strongly favored transfer. The witness factor also favored transfer because the six CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers identified as having personal knowledge of the relevant facts lived and worked in Texas. The Southern District of Texas's greater familiarity with Texas law weighed slightly in favor of transfer.

The court found other factors neutral or only slightly favorable to Barry. The convenience-of-the-parties factor did not favor either side because Texas would be more convenient for the United States and New York would be more convenient for Barry. The location of documents, availability of compulsory process, and trial-efficiency factors were neutral. Relative financial means weighed slightly in Barry's favor but was not significant. Although Barry's choice of New York was entitled to consideration, the court found that New York's connection to the case was weak because the events occurred in Texas and Barry spent most of the year at college in Massachusetts.

The court also considered Barry's statement that returning to Texas would be mentally difficult and a psychologist's opinion that doing so could contribute to a regression in his psychological functioning. The court concluded that this concern did not outweigh the other transfer factors, noting that Barry would not be required to return to the detention center itself and that the opinion about the effect of returning to Texas was speculative.

Ruling

The court granted the United States' motion to the extent that it transferred the action to the Southern District of Texas under Section 1404(a). It did not reach the branch of the motion seeking dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Thus, the opinion resolved the venue issue but did not decide whether Barry's claims were legally sufficient or whether the court had jurisdiction over them.