Viera v. DEA Special Agent Todd Riley

Background

Wigberto E. Viera, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States; Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Todd Riley; Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Tatiana R. Martins; and Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. He alleged that the defendants conspired to violate his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought $150 million in damages and release from custody.

Viera alleged that, in 2013, Agent Riley relied on information from a confidential informant, directed the informant to find him and offer him an opportunity to violate federal law, and arrested him without adequately investigating the information. Viera alleged that he was assaulted, searched, fingerprinted, subjected to DNA collection, and questioned without consent. He also alleged that, during his 2014 arraignment, Riley and AUSA Martins presented a fraudulent criminal complaint and persuaded Judge Netburn to support his imprisonment. The opinion notes that a jury later found Viera guilty of a narcotics and weapons conspiracy, and that Judge Ramos sentenced him to 180 months in prison in 2021.

Viera filed his original complaint in February 2024. An amended complaint filed on May 14, 2024, invoked the Federal Tort Claims Act, but it contained no specific factual allegations. Because Viera was representing himself, the court considered the allegations in both complaints.

Constitutional claims

The court construed Viera’s constitutional allegations as claims for damages against federal officials under the framework recognized by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The court explained that this type of claim requires facts plausibly showing that a federal officer caused the alleged constitutional violation. It also noted that this framework provides money damages only, not release from custody or other injunctive relief.

Claims against Agent Riley

The court did not decide whether Viera’s allegations fit within a recognized category of constitutional damages claims against federal officials. Instead, it ruled that the claims appeared to be barred by the statute of limitations. The alleged conduct occurred in 2013 and 2014, while Viera’s complaint was deemed filed on February 29, 2024. The court explained that the applicable limitations period was three years and that claims generally accrue when a person knows or has reason to know of the injury.

The court granted Viera leave to file a second amended complaint addressing his claims against Riley. He must provide facts explaining why those claims should not be treated as time-barred, including any facts relevant to possible equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in narrow circumstances.

Claims against Judge Netburn and AUSA Martins

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Netburn on absolute judicial-immunity grounds. Judges generally cannot be sued for damages based on actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Viera alleged no facts showing that Netburn acted outside her judicial role or without jurisdiction. It also noted that the criminal complaint in the criminal case was signed, contrary to Viera’s allegation.

The court dismissed the claims against AUSA Martins because prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages claims for conduct within their official duties that is closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court characterized both the claims against Netburn and the claims against Martins as frivolous for purposes of the statute governing fee-waived cases because the defendants were immune from suit.

Claims against the United States and tort claims

The court dismissed constitutional damages claims against the United States because the Bivens framework allows claims only against individual federal officials, not the United States or a federal agency.

Viera’s amended complaint also invoked the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the federal government’s immunity for certain tort claims against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The court explained that the Act does not provide a remedy for constitutional tort claims and that a claimant must first file an administrative claim with the appropriate federal entity. The administrative claim must state the amount sought and generally must be filed within two years after the claim accrues. The claimant must receive a final written determination, or wait six months without one, before filing an action in federal court.

Viera did not allege facts showing that he had filed an administrative claim, received a final written determination, or waited six months after filing such a claim. The court therefore held that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not waive the government’s immunity on the allegations then before it and dismissed the claims against the United States as barred by sovereign immunity. The court nevertheless granted leave to replead a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States if Viera could provide facts showing that he had exhausted the required administrative process.

Request for release and conviction-related claims

The court treated Viera’s request for release as a challenge to the validity of his federal conviction. It held that a civil damages action under Bivens was not the proper vehicle for that challenge. A federal prisoner may challenge a conviction or sentence on direct appeal or through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Viera’s filing did not meet the requirements for a § 2255 motion, the court declined to recharacterize the civil action as one. It dismissed without prejudice the claims that his rights were violated in connection with his conviction.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court granted Viera 30 days to file a second amended complaint, but only to replead: (1) his constitutional damages claims against Agent Riley and (2) his Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States. The new complaint must restate the supporting facts, address why the claims against Riley should not be dismissed as untimely, and provide facts showing exhaustion of administrative remedies for any Federal Tort Claims Act claim.

The court stated that any state-law claims would be dismissed without prejudice if Viera failed to state a federal claim in the amended complaint. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until judgment is entered. No summons would issue at that time. The court also stated that no certificate allowing an appeal of the constitutional ruling would issue and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.