Santos v. The United States of America
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-08009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Santos v. The United States of America, Judge Halpern dismissed Sheehan’s motion to dismiss Santos’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.
The ruling directly affected Arfhy Santos’s Bivens excessive-force claim and Defendant Sheehan’s motion to dismiss that claim.
What happened
In Santos v. The United States of America, Santos brought a claim under Bivens for allegedly using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court held a conference about Defendant Sheehan’s planned motion to dismiss that claim.
The court treated Sheehan’s pre-motion letter as a motion to dismiss and heard arguments from the parties. The order states that the court dismissed the motion, concluding that Santos’s claim did not present a new Bivens context and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule did not change the result.
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order on November 22, 2022. The opinion refers to additional reasons stated during the hearing and in the transcript, which are not included in the text provided.
The detailed version
- Santos v. The United States of America · No. 7:21-cv-08009
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
Arfhy Santos asserted a first claim for relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Defendant Sheehan contemplated moving to dismiss that claim. Counsel for all parties appeared at a pre-motion conference held on November 21, 2022.
Motion and ruling
The court construed Sheehan’s pre-motion letter, Document 77, as the motion to dismiss. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the court dismissed the motion for the reasons stated on the record. The order specifically states that Santos’s claim does not present a new Bivens context and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule does not lead to a different outcome. The text provided does not include the hearing transcript or the additional reasons stated on the record.
Disposition and classification
The court dismissed Defendant Sheehan’s motion to dismiss Santos’s first claim for relief. Because this was a motion to dismiss addressing whether the claim could proceed, rather than a decision on the ultimate merits of the excessive-force claim, the opinion is classified as a procedural order. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.