Encinas-Solano v. United States Border Patrol

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 9, 2024
Docket4:23-cv-00227
StatusUnknown

This text of Encinas-Solano v. United States Border Patrol (Encinas-Solano v. United States Border Patrol) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Encinas-Solano v. United States Border Patrol, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO MH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Marica Isela Encinas-Solano, No. CV-23-00227-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 United States Border Patrol, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff Marica Isela Encinas-Solano filed a pro se civil rights 16 Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 17 of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),1 and an Application to Proceed In District Court 18 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 7). For the following reasons, the Court will grant 19 the Application and dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 21 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed indicates she lacks sufficient funds to prepay the 22 filing fee for this action. The Application to Proceed will therefore be granted and Plaintiff 23 will not be required to pay the filing fees for this action. 24 . . . . 25 . . . . 26

27 1 Although Plaintiff did not identify a federal jurisdictional basis for this case, she 28 is seeking damages from federal officers who purportedly violated her constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court construes this action as having been filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted 3 in forma pauperis status, the Court shall dismiss the case “if the court determines that . . . 4 the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be 5 granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 27 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 28 case. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s 1 Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may possibly be 2 amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff appears to allege her Fifth Amendment due 5 process and equal protection rights were violated when United States Border Patrol (USBP) 6 Agents reneged on an agreement to forgo prosecution and discriminated against her based 7 on her race. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff is suing USBP Agent Arturo Acosta and an unspecified 8 number of unnamed USBP Agents, named as “Federal Agents Border Patrol,” for damages. 9 (Id. at 2.) 10 According to Plaintiff, in 2013 USBP Agent Manny Robles told Plaintiff she could 11 obtain United States citizenship by disclosing information about a cartel in Mexico. (Doc. 12 1 at 8.) After Plaintiff solicited such information from a friend and supplied it to USBP 13 Agents, Acosta allegedly told her he would not give her “anything,” and would “send [her] 14 to Mexico” if she stopped providing information. (Id. at 3.) By Plaintiff’s account, Acosta 15 and other USBP Agents later revealed to another cooperating cartel member Plaintiff had 16 served as an informant, and in 2017, she was kidnapped, tortured, and sexually abused as 17 a result. (Id.) When Plaintiff told Acosta what had happened to her, he “laugh[ed] and 18 said just don’t go to Mexico.” (Id.) Plaintiff also claims Acosta “pick[ed her] up of Illegal 19 reentry” and tried to get her “convi[c]ted of something [she] didn’t do” after she had 20 already supplied the information he requested. (Id.) Since then, Plaintiff has allegedly 21 been harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against by USBP agents and was arrested for 22 illegal reentry “as soon [as] one of them” saw her, even though they “know[ she is] not 23 illegal.” (Id.) 24 Plaintiff claims to have spent months in custody as a result of Defendants’ actions, 25 during which time she broke her tailbone and was denied medical attention for a brain 26 tumor. (Doc. 1 at 5.) She also allegedly suffered physical, mental, and emotional damage, 27 including post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of Defendants’ conduct. (Id.) 28 . . . . 1 IV. Background 2 Following her arrest in this District on November 23, 2013, Plaintiff pleaded guilty 3 in United States v. Encinas-Solano, CR-14-00839-RB (D.N.M.), to a violation of 21 U.S.C. 4 § 846: Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, contrary to 21 U.S.C. 5 §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). The United States District Court for the District of New 6 Mexico entered Judgment in that case on July 17, 2014, but the Court’s disposition is not 7 apparent from the record. Following her apparent conviction in CR-14-00839-RB, Plaintiff 8 was charged twice in this District with Illegal Reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), 9 (b)(2). Plaintiff was charged once in 2018, see United States v. Encinas-Solano, CR-18- 10 00996-TUC-CKJ (LAB), and again in 2023, see United States v. Encinas-Solano, MJ-23- 11 05813-TUC-MSA. Both charges were dismissed on the Government’s motion. Encinas- 12 Solano, CR-18-00996-TUC-CKJ (LAB) (Doc. 53); Encinas-Solano, MJ-23-05813-TUC- 13 MSA (Doc. 10). 14 V.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott
350 F.3d 1157 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Davis v. Passman
442 U.S. 228 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Carlson v. Green
446 U.S. 14 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Bush v. Lucas
462 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Patel Ex Rel. A.H. v. Kent School District
648 F.3d 965 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp
745 F.2d 1221 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert
998 F.2d 680 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
VALADEZ-LOPEZ v. Chertoff
656 F.3d 851 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Encinas-Solano v. United States Border Patrol, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/encinas-solano-v-united-states-border-patrol-azd-2024.