No grounds for allegations of falsification of evidence

Metropolitan News Company

Monday, July 8, 2024

page 1

Ninth District:

No grounds for allegations of falsification of evidence

Statement: Allegations that the Department of Homeland Security falsified evidence that led to the doctor’s arrest do not give rise to civil remedies under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments

By a MetNews editor

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a neurologist’s claim that government officials falsified evidence in a search warrant affidavit and provided misleading reports to prosecutors – leading to the doctor’s arrest and prosecution – did not give rise to an implied civil cause of action under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The issue arose in the context of a lawsuit filed by the practicing physician against the department and two now-retired agents after criminal charges against her were dismissed.

District Court Judge Garbiel P. Sanchez wrote the opinion affirming District Court Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Shubb also presided over the criminal case against plaintiff.

District Judges Danielle J. Forrest and Ryan D. Nelson joined in the opinion. Nelson separately appealed the narrow application and eventual reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 case. Launza against love It found that allegations of tampering with evidence against an immigration prosecutor give rise to a cause of action under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The dismissal was appealed by Dr. Firdos Sheikh, a Sacramento-area neurologist. In 2018, a federal grand jury indicted her on multiple counts of forced labor and harboring aliens for profit for allegedly hiding two noncitizens on her 20-acre ranch in Elk Grove for five years.

Search for Ranch

On July 1, 2013, Special Agents Carole Webster and Eugene Kizenko of the Department of Homeland Security Investigations (“HIS”) conducted an uncontested search of the ranch. Two men, identified as “Prakash” and “Alfredo,” were interviewed and stated that they were victims of human trafficking.

The two men said they were forced to work 10 to 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and were not allowed to leave the property. However, federal officials found that the workers were able to enter and leave the ranch freely and were not subjected to the long hours they had claimed.

On July 8, Kizenko obtained a search warrant for the ranch and made numerous factually false statements. After the search, the defendants prepared reports for prosecutors in which they omitted exculpatory evidence and credibly portrayed the false or exaggerated statements of Prakash and Alfredo.

Shubb declined to dismiss the criminal charges on the grounds that prosecutors failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. However, on October 9, 2020, the judge dismissed the case based on the Speedy Trial Act, arguing that if the government had disclosed all exculpatory evidence in a timely manner, the case would have gone to trial before the suspension of all trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Civil action

In March 2022, Sheikh filed a civil lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, Webster, and Kizenko, asserting implied claims for violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, based on the 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case. Bivens against six unknown federal drug investigators.

The
Bivens The court, in an opinion by Justice William Brennan Jr. (deceased), recognized an implied cause of action under the Fourth Amendment that allowed the plaintiff in this case to sue federal drug agents for an alleged unreasonable search and seizure. Subsequent cases before the Supreme Court have recognized implied causes of action for certain Fifth Amendment violations. Shubb, who said he was “very familiar with the plaintiff’s allegations, having presided over the criminal trial brought against her in 2018,” found that Sheikh met the minimum requirements for asserting a claim under the Fourth Amendment. Bivens and dismissed the case without amendment. Sanchez noted that according to the case law that Bivensdecision, courts conduct a two-step analysis to determine whether a plaintiff should be granted an implied claim under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

First, the court asks whether the case presents a new context than the few cases in which such a cause of action has been established. A case presents a “new context” if it differs in a significant way from previous ones. BivensCases decided by the Supreme Court.

Second, if the case arises in a new context, Bivens A remedy is not available when there are “special factors” that indicate that the judiciary may be less well equipped than Congress to provide the desired relief.

New context

Sanchez explained that significant differences had been identified where there were, among other things, differences in the rank of the officials involved, the constitutional rights at stake and the risk of disruptive interference by the judiciary in the work of other powers.

Regarding the sheikh’s complaint, the lawyer argued as follows:

“Dr. Sheikh’s Fourth Amendment claim concerns a new category of defendants who operate under a different legal mandate than Bivens…While the Fourth Amendment claim in Bivenswas against agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Dr. Sheikh is bringing her case against HSI agents investigating illegal border crossings….Such differences alone make this a new Bivens context.”

He continued: “Dr. Sheikh’s Fourth Amendment claim is also based on a significantly different misconduct than that alleged in Bivens. In fact, Dr. Sheikh’s allegations bear little resemblance to the warrantless search and seizure in Bivenswhere ‘agents handcuffed the plaintiff in front of his wife and children and threatened to arrest the entire family.'”

Sheikh argued that the Lanuza decision provides a basis for their lawsuit and their claims are not materially different from those contained in this decision. In an opinion by Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, the court stated: Lanuza The court ruled that a BivensA cause of action could arise for the falsification of a legal form by an immigration attorney in a deportation proceeding.

Sanchez was not convinced, noting that the Supreme Court had made it clear that a context was new when it differed substantially from previous Supreme Court cases and that lower court decisions were irrelevant.

He applied this key aspect of the analysis and said that the Lanuzacase is not applicable. He noted that “given the similarities between Lanuzaand the present case begins and ends with allegations that evidence was falsified, Lanuza has no influence on our decision here.”

Special factors

When asked whether there were any special factors that suggested the judiciary was less able than Congress to weigh the costs and benefits of a damages suit, Sanchez replied:

“In this case, several special factors argue for hesitation in expanding the Bivens case to include Dr. Sheikh’s allegations. First, Dr. Sheikh’s allegations raise unanswered questions that could interfere with the investigative and prosecution functions of the executive branch… Determining whether the defendants’ misconduct caused Dr. Sheikh’s injuries requires a review of a causal sequence of events, including the defendants’ presentation of evidence to prosecutors, the prosecutors’ internal charging decisions, the prosecutors’ presentation of evidence to the grand jury, and the grand jury’s internal deliberations that led to its decision to indict Dr. Sheikh.”

He pointed to international concerns about human trafficking, noting: “Dr. Sheikh’s allegations against HSI agents give us cause for concern, given the nature of the investigations HSI conducts and their foreign policy implications.”

Sanchez believed that the wrong she was accused of could have been remedied by filing a complaint with the federal agency. Had she been successful in getting the criminal case dismissed, she could also have claimed reimbursement of legal costs under the Hyde Amendment.

Nelson’s view

Nelson noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 Egbert v. Boulemade it clear that a Bivens Causes of action should apply only in the most unusual cases, since establishing a cause of action is a legislative decision. However, he said:

“Because
Egbert the “special factors” test has not been abolished, Lanuza is not so incompatible with Egbert that it can be overturned by a three-judge panel….But that does not mean that Lanuzawas already before theEgbert. I have serious doubts that this was the case. In any case, the argument in Lanuzais impossible to defend post-Egbert.”

He continued:

“The silence of Congress on redress for the plaintiff’s damages in Lanuzashould therefore give us cause for reflection. Lanuzashould be read and applied narrowly. It should also be overturned en banc when the opportunity presents itself.”

The case is Sheikh v. US Department of Homeland Security22-16983.

Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company