Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page: 1 of 15
Case: 15-15327
Page: 2 of 15
BACKGROUND FACTS
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.
Ct. 1999 (1971) (establishing that a plaintiff may bring suit directly under the Constitution
against federal officers in their individual capacity for constitutional violations).
2
Case: 15-15327
Page: 3 of 15
Civil Aviation Authority of Colombia. In 2004, Bonilla retired from his position
as Director, began working as an aviation consultant, and also started a part-time
business brokering the sale and lease of airplanes.
B.
Case: 15-15327
Page: 4 of 15
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Complaint
On July 28, 2014, Bonilla filed a counseled, nine-count complaint in federal
district court against the United States of America and Hoffman. Bonilla brought
the following claims against only the Defendant United States pursuant to the
FTCA: (1) false arrest (Count I); (2) false imprisonment (Count II); (3) malicious
4
Case: 15-15327
Page: 5 of 15
prosecution (Count III); (4) abuse of process (Count IV); (5) intentional infliction
of emotional distress (Count V); and (6) negligence (Count VI).
Bonilla brought the following claims against only Defendant Hoffman
pursuant to Bivens: (1) Constitutional claim under the Fifth Amendment (Count
VII); (2) Constitutional claim under the Fourth Amendment (Count VIII); and
(3) Constitutional claim for Brady 2 Rule violation (Count IX).
B.
joint motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court
concluded that Bonillas FTCA claims against the Defendant United States were
barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because they were based on the
actions of Hoffman, a federal prosecutor, who does not qualify as an investigative
or law enforcement officer within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2680(h). The
district court also concluded that Defendant Hoffman was entitled to absolute
immunity from Bonillas Bivens claims because those claims arose from
Hoffmans performance of her prosecutorial duties. Bonilla appeals the district
courts September 20, 2015 dismissal order.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963) (holding that a defendants due
process rights are violated when the prosecution suppresses material evidence favorable to the
defendant).
5
Case: 15-15327
III.
A.
Page: 6 of 15
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
We review de novo the district courts grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. Cinotto v. Delta Air Lines Inc., 674 F.3d 1285,
1291 (11th Cir. 2012). When evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court looks to see
whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789
F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015). This plausibility standard is met when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id.
A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of
elements of a cause of action will not do. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). Indeed, a complaints
factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965
(2007). [C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal
conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal. Oxford Asset
Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).
Case: 15-15327
B.
Page: 7 of 15
Case: 15-15327
Page: 8 of 15
Case: 15-15327
Page: 9 of 15
Case: 15-15327
Page: 10 of 15
Case: 15-15327
Page: 11 of 15
(4) received from Bonillas attorney and Colombian agents some evidence tending
to exculpate Bonilla. These allegations, accepted as true, do not establish the
unlawfulness of Bonillas arrest and detention and, therefore, do not state a claim
for false arrest, false imprisonment, or any of the other related causes of action that
form the basis of Bonillas FTCA claims. 3 Additionally, none of Bonillas FTCA
counts contain any allegations even mentioning the conduct of the DEA or other
federal law enforcement officials.
At most, one could speculate that Bonillas allegations concerning the
United States and U.S. authorities refer to the actions of the DEA or other
federal law enforcement officials. However, complaints that do not raise a right
to relief above the speculative level will not survive dismissal. See Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965.
Ultimately, we are left with nothing more than Bonillas vague, threadbare,
and conclusory allegations concerning the conduct of the DEA, which do not state
an FTCA claim against the United States that is plausible on its face. See Surtain,
789 F.3d at 1245; Oxford Asset Mgmt., 297 F.3d at 1188.
In sum, under 2680(h), sovereign immunity precludes FTCA liability
arising from the tortious conduct alleged in the complaint. Hoffman is not an
3
Bonillas allegation that his attorney and criminal investigator repeatedly provided the
DEA with evidence that unequivocally proved [his] innocence amounts to nothing more than a
legal conclusion[] masquerading as fact[] that does not prevent dismissal. Oxford Asset
Mgmt., 297 F.3d at 1188.
11
Case: 15-15327
Page: 12 of 15
investigative or law enforcement officer, and while a DEA agent is, the
allegations regarding the DEAs conduct is not sufficiently specific to state a
claim. Because the complaint does not state a claim against the United States
based on the conduct of an investigative or law enforcement officer, the
investigative or law enforcement officer exception in 2680(h) does not apply
and the United States enjoys sovereign immunity from Bonillas FTCA claims.
C.
Bivens claims against Hoffman under the doctrine of absolute immunity. Bonilla
argues that absolute immunity does not protect Hoffman because her misconduct
exceeded the scope of her duties as an Assistant United States Attorney. We
disagree.
Prosecutors are . . . entitled to absolute immunity from damages for acts or
omissions associated with the judicial process, in particular, those taken in
initiating a prosecution and in presenting the governments case. Bolin v. Story,
225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000). Such absolute immunity extends to a
prosecutors acts undertaken in preparing for the initiation of judicial
proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate
for the State. Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation
marks omitted) (alteration in original).
12
Case: 15-15327
Page: 13 of 15
13
Case: 15-15327
Page: 14 of 15
Here, the district court properly dismissed Bonillas Bivens claims under the
doctrine of absolute immunity. The substance of Bonillas Bivens claims, as
alleged in the complaint, are essentially twofold: (1) Hoffman allegedly violated
Bonillas Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by ignoring exculpatory evidence
and detaining him despite knowledge of his actual innocence, and (2) Hoffman
allegedly violated Bonillas Constitutional rights under Brady by failing to disclose
exculpatory evidence during the investigative phase. Hoffman enjoys absolute
immunity from both types of Bivens claims.
Bonillas first species of Bivens claim concerns the very type of
prosecutorial functions traditionally protected by absolute immunity. Bonilla seeks
recovery from Hoffman based on her alleged failure to weigh properly the value of
exculpatory evidence collected by the DEA. But absolute immunity protects
prosecutors from liability when evaluating exculpatory evidence and performing a
professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police, as Hoffman did
here. See Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273, 113 S. Ct. at 2615; Long, 181 F.3d at 1279.
Additionally, Hoffmans alleged knowledge of Bonillas actual innocence is both a
legal conclusion and an unwarranted deduction[] of fact[] that will not prevent
dismissal. Oxford Asset Mgmt., 297 F.3d at 1188.
Hoffman also enjoys absolute immunity from Bonillas Bivens claims based
on her alleged Brady violations. Hoffmans alleged failure to comply with Brady
14
Case: 15-15327
Page: 15 of 15
CONCLUSION
15