Ortiz v. Orange County, New York

Background

Six plaintiffs—Nahum Gilberto Ortiz, Denny Molina Cantor, Lucas Palacios Alvarado, Jeremias Lopez Lopez, Elmer Moscoso Guerra, and Luis Gonzalez Carbajal—brought claims against Orange County, New York, Orange County officials, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Kenneth Genalo. The plaintiffs were or are civil immigration detainees housed at the Orange County Jail under Orange County’s contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The plaintiffs alleged that they experienced assaults, racist abuse, inadequate medical and mental-health care, and inedible food. They said they complained through jail and federal channels, contacted public officials and reporters, and participated in a multiday hunger strike in February 2022. They alleged that jail officials then placed hunger strikers in segregated confinement, searched their cells, confiscated property, restricted tablet access, issued disciplinary citations, and imposed segregation. They also alleged that some plaintiffs were later moved to a newly used segregation unit and that Molina and Palacios were transferred to facilities outside New York without notice to their lawyers.

The complaint asserted a First Amendment retaliation claim against the Orange County Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also asserted First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims against the Federal Defendants. The Orange County Defendants answered the complaint and did not join the motion at issue.

Motion to Dismiss

The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At the pleading stage, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction Over the Transfers

The Federal Defendants argued that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived the court of jurisdiction to review the transfers because the transfers were within the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion. The court rejected that argument. It held that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1), which directs the government to arrange appropriate detention facilities, does not address detainee transfers or expressly give the Secretary discretion over them. Therefore, the immigration statute did not strip the court of jurisdiction over the claims concerning Molina’s and Palacios’s transfers.

The court also rejected the argument that sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claim against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The court explained that the Act generally permits suits seeking relief other than money damages for legal wrongs caused by agency action, unless another statute bars review or the action is legally committed to agency discretion. The plaintiffs alleged that the agencies violated specific transfer policies requiring compliance with stated procedures. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act claim could therefore proceed.

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege protected speech or conduct, adverse action that could deter a person of ordinary firmness, and a causal connection between the two. The Federal Defendants did not dispute, for purposes of this motion, that the plaintiffs engaged in protected activity or that Orange County officials took adverse actions. They argued that the complaint did not plausibly allege that federal officials took part in those actions or that the actions were caused by the plaintiffs’ protected activity.

The court described the issue as a close one but held that the complaint adequately alleged federal involvement. The plaintiffs alleged that an ICE officer was present during the segregation, cell searches, threats, and disciplinary citations; that an ICE official promised to address demands, return property, and restore tablet access if the hunger strike ended; that another ICE officer said he would try to resolve the later segregation; and that ICE carried out Molina’s and Palacios’s transfers. The court also considered the alleged ICE policies and contract provisions, which supported an inference that federal officials had at least a realistic opportunity to prevent the alleged retaliation.

The court further held that the timing allegations plausibly supported causation. Some alleged actions occurred during the hunger strike, while the later transfers occurred about five months afterward. The plaintiffs also allegedly continued complaining to the Department of Homeland Security during that period. Drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs, the court concluded that the complaint plausibly connected the alleged adverse actions to protected speech and conduct.

Disposition

The court denied the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It ordered them to answer the complaint by January 24, 2024, directed that an initial conference would be scheduled separately, and instructed the clerk to terminate the motion. The opinion did not decide whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prove their claims or whether any defendant is liable.