UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
K.O., et al., :
:
Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 20-309 (RC)
:
v. : Re Document Nos.: 51, 64, 66
:
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS :
ENFORCEMENT, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS;
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs in this putative class action are minor non–United States citizen children who,
after arriving in the United States either at or between designated ports of entry, were forcibly
separated from their parents by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or one of its sub-
agencies, Customs & Border Patrol (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or
U.S. Customs & Immigration Services (USCIS). Their case arrived before this Court upon
transfer from the District of Massachusetts. In that court, Plaintiffs had filed their Complaint,
ECF No. 1, and their First Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 45, asserting
Constitutional and related statutory claims against a number of individual federal officials,
including the former Attorney General, the now-former Secretary of DHS, the now-former White
House Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor to the President (collectively, with others identified
below, “the individual Defendants”). The individual Defendants moved to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 51. While that motion was pending, Plaintiffs
sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. They proposed to add the United States as
a defendant and to add eight counts against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA). Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl. (“Mot. Amend”), ECF No. 64. The
individual Defendants opposed this, as did the United States, which appeared specially for the
limited purpose of opposing the motion.
Judge Hillman of the District of Massachusetts granted the individual Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Mem. of Decision and
Order (“Mem.”), ECF No. 86. He transferred the case to this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631. Id. at 14. Judge Hillman did not address the individual Defendants’ additional
arguments that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and
he explicitly left the Motion to Amend open for this Court to resolve. See id. at 14 & n.9.
The Court has received supplemental briefing from Plaintiffs, from the individual
Defendants, and from the United States. The individual Defendants maintain that the First
Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs’ motion to file a
Second Amended Complaint adding claims against the United States is opposed by both the
individual defendants and by the United States, which is still not a party. In addition to these
pending motions, the individual Defendants have filed a Notice of Related Case, ECF No. 90,
which the Court also addresses here. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the First
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, and denies leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
This Memorandum Opinion primarily concerns a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim and a motion to amend a complaint. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the
Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the complaint and construes them liberally in the
2
Plaintiffs’ favor. See, e.g., United States v. Philip Morris, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 131, 135
(D.D.C. 2000). When considering a motion to amend a complaint, the Court evaluates the
proposed amended complaint by applying essentially the same standard it would on a motion to
dismiss. See James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181–82 (1962)). Accordingly, for now, the Court accepts as true the
Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in their complaints. In recounting the alleged factual background
the Court cites to the First Amended Complaint for two reasons. First and foremost, that
complaint is operative at this time. Second, the facts of the case pertain much more to the
individual Defendants’ arguments in their motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim, whereas the arguments against leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint are almost wholly procedural. As described below, the arguments against leave to
amend concern the procedural history of the claims against the United States, and these
procedural arguments have nothing to do with the claims against the individual defendants.
Because of the completely separate sets of arguments on the two motions, there is little risk of
confusion, especially considering that the two complaints are substantively identical with regard
to the individual Defendants. Compare First Am. Compl., with Proposed Second Am. Compl.
(“Prop. Compl.”), ECF No. 64-1 (alleging nearly identical facts, and adding only claims against
the United States and acknowledgment of certain of the individual defendants’ departures from
positions in the government).
A. Legal and Factual Background
Many non-citizens arriving in the United States without immigration documentation are
subject to the “expedited removal” proceedings created in the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–546
3
(codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.). These procedures were intended “to
expedite the removal from the United States of aliens who indisputably have no authorization to
be admitted” while allowing those claiming asylum the opportunity to have their claims heard.
Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96, 107 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 104-828 at
209 (1996)). Under the Refugee Act of 1980, any non-citizen “who is physically present in the
United States or who arrives in the United States . . . irrespective of [their] status, may apply for
asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Under “expedited removal” procedures, the Department of
Homeland Security may remove an alien from the United States “without further hearing or
review[,] unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under [8 U.S.C.
§ 1158] or a fear of persecution” supporting a claim to withholding of removal. Id.
§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). Non-citizens in “expedited removal” are nonetheless eligible to pursue
asylum provided they demonstrate a credible fear of persecution. Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B). They are,
however, to be “detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if
found not to have such a fear, until removed.” Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV).
Detention of minors is handled differently from detention of adults. The Stipulated
Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Reno (“the Flores Agreement”), Am. Compl. Ex. 1,
Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Reno, No. 85-4544-RJK(Px) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17,
1997), ECF No. 45-1, is foundational for many later-enacted statutes and regulations governing
the detention of minors in immigration detention. It defines a minor as “any person under the
age of eighteen (18) years who is detained in the legal custody of the [Immigration and
Naturalization Service,]” which was the predecessor to those agencies involved in this litigation.
Id. at 4. The Flores Agreement requires the federal government to “place each detained minor in
the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs” and “to treat all
4
minors in its custody with dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as
minors.” Id. at 7. It also requires that “[w]here the [government] determines that the detention
of the minor is not required either to secure his or her timely appearance before the [government]
or the immigration court, or to ensure the minor’s safety or that of others, the [government] shall
release a minor from its custody without unnecessary delay.” Id. at 9–10. In order of preference,
the government is required to release the minor to a parent, a legal guardian, an adult relative,
another adult designated by a parent or legal guardian, a licensed program, or another adult
individual “when it appears there is no other likely alternative . . . and family reunification does
not appear to be a reasonable possibility.” Id. at 9.
In 2002 the Homeland Security Act (“HSA”) transferred a number of INS’s immigration
responsibilities to DHS, including to USCIS, CBP, and ICE. Homeland Security Act of 2002,
Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was tasked with caring for children lacking
“lawful immigration status in the United States” for whom “there is no parent or legal guardian
in the United States; or . . . no parent or legal guardian is available to provide care and physical
custody.” 6 U.S.C. § 279(a)–(b), (g). These minors are referred to as unaccompanied alien
children or “UACs.” See id. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, passed in
2008 reaffirmed ORR’s responsibilities in caring for UACs. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(1).
Provisions of the TVPRA, as amended, codify the Flores Agreement’s requirements that UACs
in ORR custody “shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest
of the child,” ideally with “a suitable family member” but also with an organization if no family
member is available. Id. § 1232(c)(2)(A). A UAC can be placed with a proposed custodian if
HHS “makes a determination that the proposed custodian is capable of providing for the child’s
5
physical and mental well-being,” based on, “at a minimum . . . verification of the custodian’s
identity and relationship to the child, if any, as well as an independent finding that the individual
has not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child.” Id.
§ 1232(c)(3)(A).
While in DHS custody, individuals may be prosecuted for criminal violation of
immigration laws under, among other provisions, Id. § 1325. This statute makes it a crime for
any noncitizen to “enter[] or attempt[] to enter the United States at any time or place other than
as designated by immigration officers,” to “elude[] examination or inspection by immigration
officers,” or to “attempt[] to enter or obtain[] entry to the United States by a willfully false or
misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.” Id. § 1325(a).
B. Factual Background
1. Plaintiffs’ Experiences
Two named plaintiffs in this putative class action are identified as K.O. and E.O., Jr.
According to their pleadings, they arrived in Texas on May 19, 2018, having traveled from
Mexico with their mother, identified as L.J. Am. Compl. ¶ 138. K.O. was nine years old at the
time and E.O., Jr. was seventeen. Id. ¶ 139. After walking for several hours, the family was
stopped by a CBP agent and driven to a border patrol detention facility. Id. ¶¶ 140–43. At the
facility, E.O., Jr. was separated from his mother and sister and was taken to a crowded room full
of other teenagers. Id. ¶ 144–45. K.O. and L.J. were taken to a different holding cell containing
other mothers and younger children. Id. ¶ 147. After “[a]bout twelve to fourteen hours,” L.J.
was separated from K.O. and taken to another room with other mothers. Id. ¶ 149.
L.J. was placed in criminal custody, indicted for illegal entry, and sentenced to time
served after pleading guilty. Id. ¶ 155. She was then returned to civil immigration custody. Id.
6
¶ 156. At no point did the government suggest any “abuse, neglect, or unfitness,” as a parent on
L.J.’s part, nor was there any suggestion “that L.J. was not acting in the best interests of her
children.” Id.
K.O. and E.O., Jr. were placed on a bus together—but not permitted to touch one
another—and were taken to a different immigration facility, where they were placed in cells
facing one another. Id. ¶ 157. They were not allowed to speak to one another. Id. ¶¶ 157–59.
Younger children, including K.O., were crying, as was E.O., Jr. at times. Id. ¶¶ 161–62. E.O.,
Jr. was accused of lying about his age and was kicked multiple times in the back by a federal
agent. Id. ¶ 164. K.O. had her hair pulled by federal agents. Id. at 165.
Federal agents offered E.O., Jr. the opportunity to go to another facility, but he refused to
leave his sister alone. Id. ¶ 166. E.O., Jr. and K.O. were both taken to another facility. Id.
¶ 167. Federal agents told E.O., Jr. that his mother had been deported. Id. The siblings were
placed on an airplane, were not seated together, and were flown to Michigan. Id. ¶ 168. E.O., Jr.
and K.O. were sent to separate locations and federal personnel falsely told E.O., Jr. that they
were being separated only temporarily. Id.
K.O. was placed with a foster family, along with other children who had been separated
from their parents at the border. Id. ¶ 169. E.O., Jr. was placed in a facility with other boys. Id.
¶ 170. He attended school and was able to see K.O. there. Id. After a few days, E.O., Jr. was
able to speak on the phone for the first time with his father, identified as E.O., who lived in
Westborough, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 172; see also id. ¶ 154. E.O., Jr. and K.O. were released and
reunited with their father on June 19, 2018. Id. ¶ 174.
L.J. was kept for eight days in the facility where she was placed after losing her children.
Id. ¶ 175. She spoke on the phone with a person she believes to have been an asylum officer, but
7
was not allowed to call her husband, E.O. Id. She was then taken to another location, which she
believes was an immigration detention facility in Taylor, Texas. Id. In mid-June 2018 she was
told that she had established a credible fear that she would be persecuted if forced to return to
Guatemala. Id. ¶ 176. She was released on June 26, 2018 and reunited with her family in
Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 177. All four family members still suffer from trauma caused by the
separation of the family, particularly K.O. See id. ¶¶ 178–79.
The third named plaintiff is identified as C.J. Id. ¶ 181. C.J. entered the United States on
June 17, 2018 in El Paso, Texas, seeking asylum along with his father, identified as F.C. Id. C.J.
was eleven years old. Id. They were seeking asylum based on threats from organized crime
working with the police in Guatemala. Id. They approached a CBP vehicle together and were
handcuffed and driven to a border patrol detention center. Id. ¶ 182. The facility was very cold
and C.J. and F.C. were not given enough food. Id. ¶¶ 184–85.
F.C. was informed that he would soon be separated from his son. Id. ¶ 183. On June 20,
2018 CBP agents woke F.C. and C.J. and took them to a processing area. Id. ¶ 186. F.C. was
separated from his son and taken to what he believes was a criminal court. Id. F.C. was not
returned to the facility where C.J. was, and did not see him for over a month. Id. ¶¶ 187–88.
C.J. was held in a facility with other children separated from their parents. Id. ¶ 196. He was
very sad and came to believe he would never see his father again. Id. ¶ 198.
F.C. was taken to a criminal detention facility in which non-immigrants were being held.
Id. ¶ 188. From there, he was taken to criminal court and told that he was being prosecuted for
illegal entry. Id. ¶ 191. He was given the choice of leaving C.J. in the United States or being
deported with C.J., and indicated that he wanted to remain with C.J. under any circumstances.
Id. He was then moved to another criminal facility for two weeks, then to additional
8
immigration detention facilities. Id. ¶ 192. Eventually an employee at a detention center
allowed him to speak with C.J. on the phone for five minutes. Id. ¶¶ 192–93. C.J. cried through
the conversation. Id. ¶ 193. At some point thereafter F.C. was turned over to ICE custody. Id.
¶ 195.
The government reunited C.J. and F.C. on July 26, 2018 at an immigration facility in Port
Isabel, Texas. Id. ¶ 199. C.J. remains traumatized from the experience of being forcibly
separated from his father. Id. ¶¶ 199–202. F.C. also suffered “life altering” trauma and it “will
continue to affect [C.J. and F.C.’s] mental and emotional well-being for years to come.” Id.
¶ 202.
2. Defendants’ Alleged Policies
Defendants in this case are eleven named individuals and an unknown number of non-
identified ICE Agents, CBP Agents and ORR personnel. See id. at 1. All Defendants are sued in
their individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 17–30. Named Defendants are the following: former Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, former White House Chief of Staff
John Kelly, Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller, Counsel to the Attorney General Gene
Hamilton, former Director of ICE Thomas Homan, former Acting Director of ICE and former
Acting Deputy Commissioner of CBP Ronald D. Vitiello, former USCIS Director L. Francis
Cissna, former Acting DHS Secretary and former Commissioner of CBP Kevin McAleenan, HHS
Secretary Alex Azar, and former ORR Director Scott Lloyd. Id. All defendants are alleged to
have acted under color of federal law within the scope of their duties. Id. ¶ 31.
According to Plaintiffs, the Defendants in 2017 instituted a widespread practice of
separating migrant children from their parents by criminally prosecuting the parents for illegal
entry, or at least referring them for prosecution. Id. ¶ 48. Criminally charging the parents would
9
mean transferring them to federal criminal custody, away from their children. Id. ¶ 49. Children
were kept in “makeshift detention centers . . . in areas with no beds or mattresses,” and some
were abused by detention center employees. Id. ¶ 70. Health care is alleged to have been “often
grossly inadequate.” Id. ¶ 71. According to Plaintiffs, “[t]hese conditions of confinement further
traumatized the children separated from their parents and traumatized the parents who were
separated from their children.” Id. ¶ 72. Government officials are also alleged to have lied to
parents and children about why they were being separated or for how long. Id. ¶¶ 65–67.
The children, who were no longer “accompanied” by their parents, would then be
designated as UACs and transferred to ORR custody. Id. ¶ 51. Separated children were “not
afforded counsel, process, or notice of their parents’ whereabouts.” Id. Classifying children as
UACs delayed the reunification process because it meant parents had to apply as potential
“sponsors” for their own children in order to get them out of ORR custody. Id. ¶ 75.
According to Plaintiffs, the indefinite separation of children and parents was intended “to
demonstrate the agony that parents should expect to experience [should] they dare to enter the
United States without authorization with their children.” Id. ¶ 54; see also id. ¶ 79 (“The express
purpose of the family separation was to deter immigration to the United States by instilling fear
in migrants, particularly those from South and Central American countries.”). Plaintiffs suggest
that these separations were made based on migrants’ race or national origin. Id. ¶ 79. They
further allege that “[t]he forced separation of families continued well into 2018 and took place
without a hearing or any process whatsoever, regardless of the family's circumstances or the
needs of the children” and that it “occurred regardless of where or how the family entered,
whether they sought asylum, whether they were charged with unlawful entry or whether a family
member had passed a credible fear interview.” Id. ¶ 59.
10
According to Plaintiffs, Attorney General Sessions announced a “‘zero-tolerance policy’
for illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) as pretext for . . . family
separations,” when, in fact, Defendants had been separating children and parents before this
policy was announced. Id. ¶ 79. Then-ICE Director Homan, then-USCIS Director Cissna, and
then-CBP Commissioner McAleenan urged then-DHS Secretary Nielsen to detain and refer for
prosecution all parents arriving in the United States with children who had violated the statute.
Id. ¶ 80. Officials including Secretary Nielsen and President Trump denied that there was a
policy of family separation, distinguishing such a policy from the “zero-tolerance policy.” See
id. ¶¶ 82–87. Defendants’ Complaints allege in detail a variety of statements by Defendants and
others in the Executive Branch, including the President, that they say demonstrate animus based
on race and national origin, and which they say reveal the aim of deterrence that motivated the
family separation policy. Id. ¶¶ 91–112.
3. Class Allegations
Plaintiffs claim that the experiences endured by K.O., E.O., Jr., and C.J. are typical of the
experiences suffered by putative class members. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 180, 203, 209. They seek to
represent a class defined as:
[A]ll minor children nationwide who: enter or have entered the United States at or
between designated ports of entry; have been or will be separated from a parent or
parents by DHS or its sub-agencies (CBP, ICE, or USCIS); and detained in ORR
custody, ORR foster care, or CBP or ICE custody without a demonstration in a
hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.
Id. ¶ 205. Based on discovery taken in another pending case, they allege that the class could
number in the thousands, and that they are ascertainable through government records. Id.
¶¶ 206–07. They further allege that common questions of law or fact relating to Defendants’
alleged separation of class members from their parents make the case appropriate for class
treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Id. ¶ 208. Plaintiffs further allege a
11
series of facts based on media reports and reports drafted by child development and psychology
experts to establish the nature and extent of the trauma that children who are detained and
separated from their parents in these sorts of circumstance are likely to experience. See id.
¶ 113–129.
C. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the District of Massachusetts on September 5, 2018.
Compl., ECF No. 1. It asserted eight counts against the individual defendants, all of which
remain in the First Amended Complaint. Compare id. ¶¶ 199–276, with Am. Coml. ¶¶ 215–303.
Defendants moved to dismiss, ECF No. 38, and Plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaint,
rendering that motion moot. See ECF No. 50 (electronic order denying as moot the motion to
dismiss). The First Amended Complaint added one new Count, bringing the total to nine against
the individual Defendants: violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful and
unreasonable seizure (Count I—newly added in the First Amended Complaint), violation of
substantive due process rights to family integrity (Count II), violation of procedural due process
(Count III), violation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection (Count IV),
violation of substantive due process rights relating to the punishment of civil detainees (Count
V), violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in connection with coerced
waiver of asylum and other immigration claims (Count VI), violation of substantive due process
rights in connection with the failure to provide adequate mental health services (Count VII),
conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (Count VIII), and
refusal or neglect to prevent or aide in preventing conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Count IX).
12
The Individual Defendants then filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 51. Their
memorandum supporting the motion argued for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and for
improper venue, as well as for failure to state a claim. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot.
to Dismiss. (“Mot. Dismiss Mem.”), ECF No. 52. Before Judge Hillman ruled on the Motion to
Dismiss, Plaintiffs filed the still-pending Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint. Mot. Amend. The proposed Second Amended Complaint would add the United
States as a party and would allege eight tort claims against the United States. Prop. Compl.
¶¶ 305–45; see also id. ¶ 10. Then, having realized that the Motion to amend was in violation of
a District of Massachusetts local rule, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave from Compliance
with the Service Requirements in Local Rule 15.1. ECF No. 66.
In February of this year, Judge Hillman issued a Memorandum Opinion granting the
Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the District of Massachusetts lacked personal jurisdiction
over the Defendants and that venue was improper in that District. Mem. at 14. Judge Hillman
did not address the arguments for dismissal based on failure to state a claim. See Mem. He
denied the Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery and the Motion to Strike the Defendants’ Reply
Brief, and explicitly declined to rule on the Motion for Leave to Amend, leaving it for this Court.
Id. at 14 & n. 9. Finally, Judge Hillman transferred the case to this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1631, which allows a court lacking jurisdiction over an action to transfer that action to a
court where it could have been brought “if it is in the interest of justice” to do so. Id. at 14
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1631).
When the case arrived before this Court, the individual Defendants filed a Notice of
Related Case, ECF No. 90, suggesting that this case might be transferred to the Judge overseeing
13
that one. Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Notice of Related Case. Pls.’ Obj. to Defs.’
Defs.’ Notice of Rel. Case, ECF No. 92. 1
The Court held a status conference, during which it was agreed that the parties would file
supplemental briefing. The Court has received that supplemental briefing, from the Plaintiffs,
the individual Defendants, and the United States, which address the Motion for Leave to Amend,
the arguments that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the related
case issue. See Supp. to the U.S.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to file a Second Am. Compl.
(“U.S. Supp.”), ECF No. 106; Supp. Br. in Supp. of the Individual Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss and
Opp’n to Mot. for Leave to Amend (“Defs.’ Supp.”), ECF No. 107; Pls.’ Supp. Br. (“Pls.’
Supp.”), ECF No. 108. The Court has also received responsive briefing from all three groups.
See Resp. to Pls.’ Supp. Mem. (“Defs.’ Resp.”), ECF No. 109; Pls.’ Resp. to Supp. Brs. (“Pls.’
Resp.”), ECF No. 110; Resp. to Pls.’ Supp. to Mot. for Leave to File a Second Am. Compl.
(“U.S. Resp.”), ECF No. 111. The Court is now appraised of the parties’ respective positions on
all pending motions, and the motions are ripe for decision.
1
Upon review, the Court did not find the related case identified by Defendants to be
sufficiently connected to this one to warrant transfer to a different judge of this Court. Civil
cases are deemed related in this Court when they “involve common issues of fact” or “grow out
of the same event or transaction,” among other alternatives not relevant here. LCvR 40.5(a)(3).
If related cases are noted after both cases have been assigned, it is up to the discretion of the
judge with the later-assigned case whether to transfer it to the judge with the earlier-assigned
case. LCvR 40.5(c)(2) (“the judge having the later-numbered case may transfer” (emphasis
added)); see also LCvR 40.5(c)(3) (“Where a party objects to a designation . . . the matter shall
be determined by the judge to whom the case is assigned.”). The purportedly related case here,
Ms. Q v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. 18-2409 (D.D.C.), is quite different
from the instant action. It is an individual action, not a class action like this case, and brings
different kinds of claims against only a subset of the defendants being sued here. While it
involves some common issues of fact, those facts concern nationwide government policies that
could be shared between any number of cases. Further, Ms. Q is currently stayed, with a motion
to dismiss as moot held in abeyance. See Mem. Op. and Order, Ms. Q, No. 18-2409 (D.D.C.
Nov. 21, 2019), ECF No. 45. A transfer would therefore not benefit judicial economy in any
meaningful way. Accordingly, the Court declines to transfer this case.
14
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim” in order to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds
upon which it rests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(per curiam). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not test a plaintiff's ultimate
likelihood of success on the merits, but rather tests whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim
for which relief can be granted. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514–15 (2002).
It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead all elements of her prima facie case in the complaint.
See id. at 511–14; Bryant v. Pepco, 730 F.Supp.2d 25, 28–29 (D.D.C. 2010).
Nevertheless, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). This means that a plaintiff's factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56 (citations omitted); see also Harris v.
D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 791 F.3d 65, 70 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (requiring that a Title VII plaintiff
allege “facts that, taken as true, render his claim of retaliation [or discrimination] plausible”).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements,” are therefore insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true, see id., nor must a court presume
the veracity of the legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations, see Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. “In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, [the Court] may consider
only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the
15
complaint and matters of which [the Court] may take judicial notice.” EEOC v. St. Francis
Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a plaintiff to amend a complaint once as a
matter of course within 21 days of serving it or within 21 days of the filing of a responsive
pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a plaintiff may amend a pleading only with
the opposing party’s written consent—which has been denied in this case—or by the Court’s
leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 instructs courts to “freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Id.; see also Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F.3d 579, 582 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (explaining that
Rule 15 “is to be construed liberally”). Importantly, “[t]he decision to grant or deny leave to
amend . . . is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.” Commodore–Mensah v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 2d 50, 52 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Doe v. McMillan, 566 F.2d 713, 720
(D.C. Cir. 1977)). Generous standard notwithstanding, courts may deny leave to amend for such
reasons as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure
to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party
by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962). “Amendments that do not radically alter the scope and nature of the action . . .
are especially favored.” United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., 301
F.R.D. 5, 8 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Estate of Gaither ex rel. Gaither v. District of Columbia, 272
F.R.D. 248, 252 (D.D.C. 2011)). “Courts may deny a motion to amend a complaint as futile . . .
if the proposed claim would not survive a motion to dismiss.” James Madison Ltd., 82 F.3d at
1099 (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 181–82). Accordingly, in determining the futility of
amendment, the Court applies the same standard it applies in resolving a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id.
16
III. ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs argue that the individual Defendants’ arguments in favor of dismissal for failure
to state a claim are no longer ripe for decision because Judge Hillman already ruled on that
motion. Pls.’ Supp. at 13. This is contrary to the parties’ agreement with the Court in their
teleconference that the remaining arguments on the Motion would be addressed in the parties
supplemental briefing. The Court suspects Plaintiffs did not forget this, as they devoted two
dozen pages to the merits of these arguments in their supplemental briefing. See id. at 14–37.
The issues have been fully briefed—in two different courts now—and will be resolved here in
the interest of efficiency. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (“[D]istrict courts
have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the
efficient and expedient resolution of cases.”).
1. Bivens Claims
Plaintiffs’ claims against the individual defendants are the type of claims for damages
against federal agents and officials acting under color of federal authority that the Supreme Court
first authorized under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that federal agents acting under color of
federal authority who commit an unconstitutional search or seizure could be held liable as
individuals for money damages. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397. In Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228
(1979), and Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), the Supreme Court extended the Bivens cause
of action to allow for damage claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Carlson, 446
U.S. at 20 (allowing a federal prisoner to bring an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to
provide adequate medical treatment); Davis, 442 U.S. at 230 (allowing a former congressional
staffer to bring a Fifth Amendment claim for dismissal based on sex). Since then, the Court has
17
declined to extend Bivens and to find new implied damages remedies ten times, including earlier
this year in Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 747 (2020), and in the 2017 case Ziglar v.
Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1863 (2017). See also Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1857 (collecting the eight
additional cases).
A court faced with a claim that would extend Bivens and to recognize new implied
constitutional cause of actions must undertake “a two-step inquiry.” Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at
743. First, the court must “inquire whether the request involves a claim that arises in a ‘new
context’ or involves a ‘new category of defendants’” from those in any of the three Supreme
Court decisions that did recognize Bivens actions. Id. (quoting Correctional Servs. Corp. v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 68 (2001)). Importantly, “[a] claim may arise in a new context even if it
is based on the same constitutional provision as a claim in a case in which a damages remedy
was previously recognized.” Id. If the claim would extend Bivens to a new context, the court
must then “ask whether there are any ‘special factors that counsel hesitation’ about granting the
extension.” Id. (quoting Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1857 (internal quotations and alterations omitted)).
This involves evaluating “whether the Judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or
instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to
proceed.” Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1857–58. When one or more “special factor[s]” have provided
“reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new context or to a new class of defendants,” the
Supreme Court has “reject[ed] the request.” Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 743. Finally, “if there is
an alternative remedial structure present in a certain case, that alone may limit the power of the
Judiciary to infer a new Bivens cause of action.” Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1858; see also Hernandez,
140 S. Ct. at 750 (“Congress’s decision not to provide a judicial remedy does not compel [the
courts] to step into its shoes.” (emphasis added)).
18
The D.C. Circuit has not addressed a Bivens claim since Hernandez v. Mesa, but has
issued two precedential opinions postdating Ziglar v. Abbasi in which it declined an opportunity
to extend Bivens. Loumiet v. United States, 948 F.3d 376 (D.C. Cir. 2020); Liff v. Office of the
Inspector Gen. for U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 881 F.3d 912 (D.C. Cir. 2018). In Liff v. Office of the
Inspector General for U.S. Department of Labor, a government contractor claimed that
Department of Labor officials had violated his Fifth Amendment rights to Due Process by
issuing erroneous reports about him and his business. Liff, 881 F.3d at 914–15. No Bivens
remedy was available in this new context because Congress had provided a number of alternative
remedies available for disputes between the government and its contractors. Id. at 915. More
recently, in Loumiet v. United States, a lawyer claimed that the Office of Comptroller of
Currency had carried out a retaliatory prosecution against him in violation of his First
Amendment rights. 2 Loumiet, 948 F.3d at 378–79. This was “clearly . . . a new Bivens context,”
and the Circuit saw special factors, including again the availability of alternative remedies. Id. at
382–83; see id. at 384 (discussing provisions in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act that would have allowed the Plaintiff “meaningful remedies” (quoting Bush v.
Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 368 (1983))).
The first seven claims brought by Plaintiffs in their Amended Complaint are potential
Bivens claims, each based in the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs seem to concede that
some of these present new Bivens contexts, but argue that “[a]t least three” do not: “the Fourth
Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure; the Fifth Amendment claim for violation of the
equal protection guarantee; and the Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim based on the
2
He had also brought Fifth Amendment Bivens claims but these were not before the
Circuit on appeal after Abbasi. See Loumiet, 948 F.3d at 379.
19
right to adequate health care.” Pls.’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Opp’n”) at
27, ECF No. 56; see also Pls.’ Supp. at 14 (same). The Court disagrees and thinks all seven
present new contexts. “A claim may arise in a new context even if it is based on the same
constitutional provision as a claim in a case in which a damages remedy was previously
recognized,” as these three claims are. Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 743.
It is unclear what cases Plaintiffs think could have established a Bivens action in this
context, other than the original trilogy of Bivens, Davis, and Carlson. They cite two out-of-
Circuit cases, and one from this Court that allowed the amendment of a complaint in order to
properly frame a Bivens claim, but which said nothing about whether such a claim would
actually be viable. Pls.’ Supp. at 14–15 (citing Doe v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-4, 2018 WL 6540554,
at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2018)). Neither Bivens, Davis, nor Carlson dealt with the rights of
noncitizens in immigration detention. In Hernandez v. Mesa, the Supreme Court found that the
case presented a new context with only a fairly brief analysis, observing that it was “glaringly
obvious” the cross-border shooting of a Mexican teenager by a Border Patrol agent involved a
“new” and “meaningfully different” context from an unlawful arrest and search in New York
City (Bivens) or sex discrimination on Capitol Hill (Davis). Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 743–44.
Carlson arguably is somewhat closer to Count VII in this case, as it concerned medical treatment
for a person in federal custody, but immigration detention is a different context from the federal
prison system. None of the three established contexts for Bivens claims address the rights of
noncitizens, or of minors. Whether this case presents a new context is not a close call. To find
otherwise would be to say that the Court need not even consider what special factors might
counsel hesitation—and that is clearly not the case. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the next
step in the analysis.
20
A number of special factors counseling hesitation are present here. In another case
challenging the executive branch’s alleged family separation policy for undocumented
immigrants, Judge Friedman identified three such factors. Mejia-Mejia v. ICE, No. 18-cv-1445,
2019 WL 4707150, at *4–5 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2019). First, “Bivens suits are not the appropriate
mechanism to litigate objections to general government policies.” Id. at *4 (citing Correctional
Servs. Corp., 534 U.S. at 74). Recognized Bivens claims “have generally been made against
individuals . . . who have engaged in some personal misconduct in a direct and particularized
interaction with a plaintiff, not against individuals who have applied a general policy that
affected plaintiff and others in similar ways.” Id. A challenge to a coordinated policy organized
from the top of the Executive Branch across several departments is a different kind of lawsuit,
and not one that Bivens has been used for in the past. See id. at *4–5. In addition, this Court
shares Judge Friedman’s concerns that challenging Executive Branch policies through Bivens
actions could require discovery that “dampen[s] the candor of conversations and advice rendered
by officials within the executive branch.” Id. at *5; see also Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1858 (“[T]he
decision to recognize a [Bivens] damages remedy requires an assessment of its impact on
governmental operations systemwide.”).
Plaintiffs dispute this characterization of their claims. They argue that the claims in
Mejia-Mejia challenged “broad immigration policy decisions” whereas theirs are focused on
individual conduct. Pls.’ Resp. at 7 (quoting Mejia-Mejia, 2019 WL 4707150, at *4). This
supposed distinction is unavailing. It is true that Judge Friedman, and not the Plaintiffs in Mejia-
Mejia, characterized the claims at issue as “propos[ing] that senior officials should be
individually liable for broad immigration policy decisions,” Mejia-Mejia, 2019 WL 4707150, at
*4, but the putative Bivens claims in that case were not substantively different from those here.
21
They were claims against Attorney General Sessions and ORR Director Lloyd—both Defendants
here— and other agency officials in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive
damages. See id. at *2. The conduct challenged and the legal theory was the same. The
Plaintiffs here would reach even further into Executive Branch deliberations because they have
named a former White House Chief of Staff and a Senior Advisor to the President as Defendants.
The conversations and advice at issue here are closer to the office of the President and, even
without considering the substantive law regarding whether they would be privileged or
discoverable, they give the Court more reason to pause before allowing a Bivens action that
could reach them.
Plaintiffs also explain that their First Amended Complaint “clearly distinguishes between
the ‘zero tolerance policy’ for immigration prosecutions and the unnecessary and unlawful
forcible separation of children from their families.” Pls.’ Supp. at 19 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 82).
The Court does not see what difference this makes when it comes to the concern that allowing a
Bivens action would require sensitive discovery relating to executive branch policymaking.
Considering the class nature of the claims and the high ranks of the officials being sued, the
Court does not see how prosecution of these claims could avoid looking into policymaking at the
highest levels—indeed that kind of policymaking is what the Amended Complaint describes.
Another special factor identified by Judge Friedman in Mejia-Mejia is also relevant here.
As in Mejia-Mejia, this suit “challenges powers that are already subject to extensive
Congressional action” through the immigration code, and concerns the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion by the Attorney General. Mejia-Mejia, 2019 WL 4707150, at *5 (citing Fiallo v. Bell,
430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (noting Congress’s extensive power over immigration)). The Supreme
Court later made a related point in Hernandez, observing in the analogous context of
22
extraterritorial claims brought by foreign nationals that “Congress . . . has authority in the field”
but has “le[ft] the resolution of [such] claims brought by foreign nationals to executive branch
officials and the diplomatic process.” Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 740–50. Here, too, the Court
sees “reason to pause” before creating a Constitutional cause of action for claims about the ways
in which the Executive Branch operated within a statutory framework set by Congress. Plaintiffs
argue that there has been no “‘explicit congressional declaration’ that a damages remedy is
unavailable.” Pls.’ Supp. at 20 (quoting Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397). This argument
misunderstands the doctrine. An “explicit congressional declaration” of that sort would be an
independent ground for declining to extend Bivens, but is not necessary for the “special factors”
analysis to prevent extension for other reasons. See Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223, 229 n.10
(D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that the lack of an “explicit congressional declaration” “has little
relevance to the “special factors” exception”).
Two additional special factors carry somewhat less weight in the Court’s decision not to
extend Bivens, but bear mentioning nonetheless. First, as the Supreme Court discussed in
Hernandez v. Mesa, the Executive Branch’s “attempt[s] to control the movement of people and
goods across the border” between the United States and Mexico “implicate[] an element of
national security.” Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 746. Hernandez v. Mesa, which concerned an agent
standing at the physical border with a firearm, implicates national security more directly than this
case. Still, the movement of people across the border always contains at least an element of
national security even when, as here, many of the people at issue are children.
Finally, alternative methods of relief appear to be available to the plaintiffs. In Mejia-
Mejia, Judge Friedman noted two class actions in the Southern District of California. Mejia-
Mejia, 2019 WL 4707150, at *5 (citing Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enf’t, No. 18-
23
cv-0428, (S.D. Cal.); M.M.M. ex rel. his minor child, J.M.A. v. Barr, No. 18-cv-1832 (S.D.
Cal.)). One of these is an ongoing putative class action being litigated by the American Civil
Liberties Union on behalf of a class of adult parents who were separated from their children. See
Third Am. Compl, Ms. L., No. 18-cv-0428 (Oct. 9, 2018), ECF No. 250. Here, the proposed
class is made up of the separated children, not their parents, but Ms. L. nonetheless suggests that
claims under the Administrative Procedure Act or under the Asylum and Withholding of
Removal Statutes or the Convention against Torture might be possibilities. See id. ¶¶ 98–107.
The other case, M.M.M., has settled, and includes a class of children. See Order Certifying the
Settlement Classes and Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, M.M.M., No. 18-cv-
1832 (Nov. 15, 2018), ECF No. 99. While there are undoubtedly differences between those
actions and this one, the Court does not need to compare in detail the respective pleadings. An
alternative method of relief that cautions against extending Bivens need not be an alternative
means of bringing exactly the same claim. See Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 709 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (“The special factors analysis does not turn on whether the statute provides a remedy to
the particular plaintiff for the particular claim he or she wishes to pursue.”). Even if there were
no alternative remedy, 3 the other factors discussed above would give the Court sufficient reason
to pause before extending Bivens to the claims presented here.
In sum, two special factors primarily give the Court “reason to pause” in this case: first,
the fact that Bivens is not properly used as a means of challenging general government policies,
and second, the fact that Congress has legislated extensively in this area without providing of this
3
The Plaintiffs’ proposed tort claims against the United States, which they seek to amend
their complaint in order to add, are not an alternative of the sort that qualifies as a special factor
in the Bivens analysis. A plaintiff may pursue Bivens claims against officials in their individual
capacities alongside FTCA claims against the United States for common law tort violations.
Loumiet v. United States, 828 F.3d 935, 945 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
24
kind of suit. Additionally, the fact that national security concerns are likely implicated and that
alternatives forms of relief appear to be available give the Court further pause. For these
reasons, the Court declines to extend Bivens into this new context, and will grant the motion to
dismiss as to Counts I through VII.
2. Statutory Claims
Two claims in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint do not rely on Bivens, but are instead
statutory: Count VIII, which alleges a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1985(3) and Count IX, which alleges refusal or neglect to provide or aide in preventing
a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 286–
303. To state a claim under Section 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege “(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the
purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal
protection of laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either
injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United
States.” Wilson v. DNC Servs. Corp., 315 F. Supp. 3d 392, 400–01 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Pope
v. Bond, 641 F. Supp. 489, 498 (D.D.C. 1986)). “[Section] 1986 imposes liability upon a person
who ‘neglects or refuses’ to prevent a wrong under § 1985.” Jackson v. Donovan, 856 F. Supp.
2d 147, 150 (D.D.C. 2012). This means that “a colorable claim under § 1985 is a prerequisite to
a claim under § 1986.” Leonard v. George Wash. Univ. Hosp., 273 F. Supp. 3d 247, 256
(D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Philogene v. District of Columbia, 864 F. Supp. 2d 127, 132 (D.D.C.
2012)).
25
The individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on these
statutory claims. 4 Mot. Dismiss Mem. at 40–42; Defs.’ Supp. at 14–15. “Qualified immunity
shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1)
that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly
established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735
(2011) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). For a right to be “clearly
established,” at the time of the officer's conduct, “existing law must have placed the
constitutionality of the officer’s conduct ‘beyond debate.’” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138
S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 741). The legal principle to be applied
must be “dictated by ‘controlling authority’ or ‘a robust consensus of cases of persuasive
authority,’” that “clearly prohibit the officer's conduct in the particular circumstances before
him.” Id. at 589–90 (quoting Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 741–42). Qualified immunity is properly
evaluated at the motion to dismiss stage. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). A
defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving the defense. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815.
Trial courts have discretion to decide which prong of the qualified immunity analysis to
address first. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236; see Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527, 530 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
(noting that “lower federal courts have the discretion to decide only the more narrow ‘clearly
established’ issue ‘in light of the circumstances of the particular case at hand.’” (quoting
Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236)). On the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he dispositive question is
‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’’’ Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at
1866 (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (per curiam) (internal quotation
4
The individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all nine
claims, but the Court need not address whether they would be entitled to qualified immunity for
the Bivens claims because those fail to state a claim for other reasons.
26
marks omitted)); see also id. at 1867 (“[Q]ualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335,
341 (1986))). As a defense to claims under § 1985(3), qualified immunity is available not only
when officers reasonably might not have known that the actions they allegedly conspired to take
were unlawful but also when officers reasonably might not have known that their planning could
be labeled a conspiracy under the statute. Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1867 (granting qualified
immunity to defendants because “potential liability for this statutory offense would not have
been known or anticipated by reasonable officials in their position”).
Following Abassi, Defendants argue that one reason why Plaintiffs’ two statutory claims
fail is that it is not clearly established that § 1985(3) can “even appl[y] to federal actors who are
formulating general policy.” Mot. Dismiss Mem. at 64. Under the “intracorporate-conspiracy
doctrine,” “there is no unlawful conspiracy when officers within a single corporate entity consult
among themselves and then adopt a policy for the entity.” Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1867 (citing
Coppwerweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769–71 (1984)); see also id.
(“Conspiracy requires an agreement . . . between or among two or more separate persons. When
two agents of the same legal entity make an agreement in the course of their official duties,
however, as a practical and legal matter, their acts are attributed to their principal.”). The
Supreme Court in Abassi observed a longstanding dispute among the lower courts regarding the
applicability of the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine to alleged conspiracies to violate civil
rights in violation of § 1985. Id. at 1868 (citing discussion of the dispute in Bowie v. Maddox,
642 F.3d 1122, 1130–31 (D.C. Cir. 2011)); see also Apollo v. Bank of Am., N.A., 315 F. Supp. 3d
436, 439 (D.D.C. 2018) (indicating the question remained thirteen months after Abassi). The
Court in Abassi held that the defendant officials sued under § 1985 were entitled to qualified
27
immunity because the division among the courts concerning the intracorporate-conspiracy
doctrine “demonstrates that the law on the point is not well established” and that therefore “a
reasonable official lacks the notice required before imposing liability.” Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at
1868.
Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Abassi by arguing that the defendants there “all worked
for the same Department of the Executive Branch” while “many of the Defendants here worked
in different Departments.” Pls.’ Supp. at 34; see also Opp’n at 60–61. Intracorporate-conspiracy
doctrine should not apply, Plaintiffs argue, “[b]ecause the [D]efendants alleged to have
conspired . . . are from distinct entities, performing distinct functions and making independent
decisions.” Pls.’ Supp. at 34. While this does identify a factual distinction from Abassi, the
Court does not think it makes any difference given Abassi’s reasoning. In Abassi, without
reaching a holding one way or the other, the Supreme Court explained that “conversations and
agreements between and among federal officials in the same Department should not be the
subject of a private cause of action for damages under § 1985(3).” Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1868.
But “open discussion among federal officers is to be encouraged,” id., as much across
departments as much as within them. It is especially the case where, as here, conversations
among White House officials and heads of departments are at issue. For example, if there is
good reason for the Attorney General to be able to count on frank and open conversations with
the heads of various Department of Justice divisions, then there is at least equally good reason
for the Attorney General to be able to have the same kinds of conversations with White House
officials.
Moreover, at least one court in this district, and numerous district courts around the
country, have applied the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to different entities within state and
28
local governments. See Kelley v. District of Columbia, 893 F. Supp. 2d 115, 117 (D.D.C. 2012)
(applying intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to an alleged conspiracy involving the D.C. Chief of
Police and the former D.C. Attorney General); see also, e.g., Guichard v. Town of Brookhaven,
26 F. Supp. 3d 219, 227–28 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (same for an alleged conspiracy involving a town,
its waste management department, and employees of each); Dunlop v. City of New York, No. 06-
cv-0433 (RJS), 2008 WL 1970002, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (same for an alleged
conspiracy involving the New York City mayor, police commissioner, New York County
District Attorney, and various other officials). It is irrelevant whether the Court would follow
these cases—which have no precedential weight here—because it is enough for defendants to
show that the law is not clearly established in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Another good reason to think the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine might apply here is
that Plaintiffs recognize that every Defendant—from the Chief of Staff down to the unnamed
agents—acted within the scope of his or her employment. See Am. Compl. ¶ 31 (“At all relevant
times, the Defendants have acted under color of federal law in the course and scope of their
duties and functions as agents, employees, and officers of the United States in engaging in the
conduct described in this Amended Complaint.”). The intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine
protects only employees acting within the scope of their employment. Mehari v. District of
Columbia, 268 F. Supp. 3d 73, 80 (D.D.C. 2017); see Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1868 (“These
considerations suggest that officials employed by the same governmental department do not
conspire when they speak to one another and work together in their official capacities.”
(emphasis added)). The Defendants here have official duties that require them to speak and work
with other officials outside their own departments. The non-identified ICE Agents and CBP
Agents—all organized under the Department of Homeland Security—must communicate and
29
coordinate with the non-identified ORR officials from HHS in order to process and care for
UACs. White House officials and heads of agencies must do the same with heads of various
departments. If the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine can apply to civil rights claims—and
Abassi states that it might be able to—there is little reason to think its reach would stop at cross-
department communications within the scope of federal officers’ official duties. As Plaintiffs
acknowledged, these officials acted under color of federal law as “agents, employees, and
officers of the United States,” not on behalf of their individual agencies.
None of this is to say that the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine necessarily applies to
conversations and planning that takes place across executive departments, but only that the
question is sufficiently open that the issue is not “beyond debate.” Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 741.
While Plaintiffs have attempted to distinguish the cases cited by Defendants—including Abassi
and the state and local government cases—they present no cases to establish affirmatively that
liability for Defendants’ alleged conduct is clearly established. See Pls.’ Resp. at 13–14. Simply
distinguishing Defendants’ cases, even if done effectively, would not carry the Plaintiffs’ burden.
The legal conclusions necessary to find in Plaintiffs’ favor “cannot be clearly established” and
thus Defendants “would not have known with any certainty that the alleged agreements were
forbidden by law.” Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1869. The individual defendants are therefore entitled
to qualified immunity on the § 1985(3) claim, see id., and so the § 1986 claim necessarily fails
along with it, see Leonard, 273 F. Supp. 3d at 256.
30
B. Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint 5
“Courts may deny a motion to amend a complaint as futile . . . if the proposed claim
would not survive a motion to dismiss.” James Madison Ltd., 82 F.3d at 1099. Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint makes identical Bivens and statutory conspiracy claims against the
individual Defendants. Amending these claims would be futile because the proposed
amendments change nothing about them and they would not survive a motion to dismiss for the
reasons explained above. This would leave only for this Court’s consideration the proposed tort
claims against the United States.
The United States argues that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to add these claims
because Plaintiffs never filed a proper administrative claim, U.S. Supp. at 5; see also U.S. Resp.
at 2 n.1, and that even if they did, they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before
filing their initial complaint in this case. U.S. Supp. at 6. Plaintiffs’ first Complaint in this case
was filed on September 5, 2018. See ECF No. 1. By their own admission, Plaintiffs did not
present their administrative tort claims pursuant to the FTCA until October 9, 2018. See Mot.
Amend ¶ 2. The United States acknowledges that “the case law on [allowing amendment in
circumstances like these] is not uniform.” U.S. Resp. at 4. It points, however, to Schneider v.
Kissinger, 310 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D.D.C. 2004), in which amendment was not allowed under the
same circumstances presented here. Id. at 269–70; see id. at 270 (“Allowing claimants generally
5
While litigating in the District of Massachusetts, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave
from Compliance with the Service Requirements in Local Rule 15.1, ECF No. 66, based on their
apparent failure to comply with that local rule in the filing of their Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint. Judge Hillman did not rule on the Motion for Leave from
Compliance, and it remains pending. In their supplemental briefing in this Court neither the
United States nor the individual Defendants have mentioned this motion, except in passing. U.S.
Supp. at 2 n.4. The motion will be neither granted nor denied. There is no need for the Court to
grant leave from compliance with a local rule from a different district that has no bearing on this
Court. The motion is therefore found to be moot in light of the transfer of the case to this Court.
31
to bring suit under the FTCA before exhausting their administrative remedies and to cure the
jurisdictional defect by filing an amended complaint would render the exhaustion requirement
meaningless and impose an unnecessary burden on the judicial system.” (quoting Duplan v.
Harper, 188 F.3d 1195, 1199 (10th Cir. 1999))). Plaintiffs point to no binding precedent to the
contrary, nor have they identified any decisions contrary to Schneider from this district. See Pls.’
Supp. at 11.
Under the circumstances, the Court sees no reason to allow amendment. Judicial
economy would be better served by the filing of a new action. Because the claims against the
individual Defendants fail to state a claim, there is nothing to be gained in terms of judicial
efficiency by litigating the claims against the United States in this action. The Schneider issue
derives from the fact that the initial complaint in this action was filed before administrative
remedies were exhausted pursuant to the FTCA. This would not be a problem in a new suit. The
issue of whether administrative remedies have ever been exhausted will remain, but Plaintiffs
now have the opportunity to address these issues before instituting a new case. Plaintiffs do not
argue that they will be prejudiced if amendment of their FTCA claims is not allowed. See id.
Their only judicial economy argument in favor of amendment is that discovery on the FTCA
claims will overlap substantially with discovery on the Bivens and conspiracy claims. Id. at 12.
But that will not be the case because those claims have failed. With nothing else remaining in
this case, there is no benefit to Plaintiffs to having their FTCA claims litigated under this case
number. To the contrary, keeping the cases separate may benefit Plaintiffs in that they will be
able to immediately appeal the dismissal of their Bivens claims now. But if the FTCA claims
were added to this case Plaintiffs would have to await resolution of the FTCA claims before
appealing the dismissal of the Bivens claims.
32
“The grant or denial of leave to amend is committed to a district court’s discretion” and
“futility of amendment” is a proper basis for the exercise of that discretion. Firestone v.
Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Here the Court will deny leave to amend.
Amendment would be futile given the procedural hurdles that Plaintiffs have apparently failed to
clear, and in filing a new action Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to cure one or more
procedural defects.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 51) is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64)
is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave from Compliance with the Service Requirements in
Local Rule 15.1 of the District of Massachusetts (ECF No. 66) is FOUND TO BE MOOT. An
order consistent with this memorandum opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.
Dated: June 23, 2020 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
33