Oscar Vera Castrejon v. Jerome County

• Court: District Court, D. Idaho
• Decided: July 21, 2022
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00462
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF IDAHO 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 OSCAR VERA CASTREJON, No. 1:20-cv-00462 WBS 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 15 JEROME COUNTY; GEORGE OPPEDYK, SUMMARY JUDGMENT Sheriff of Jerome County, in his 16 individual capacity; MARISELLA IBARRA, in her individual 17 capacity; AUSTIN RASMUSSEN, in his individual capacity; 18 JOHNETHAN DAVIS, in his individual capacity; MATTHEW 19 SPENCER, in his individual capacity; COLTON CROCKET, in his 20 individual capacity; MAKAYLEE BOOTH, in her individual 21 capacity; JACOB WING, in his individual capacity; SALAZAR 22 ALMAZAN, in his individual capacity; CRAIG CROUSE, in his 23 individual capacity; J.D. WOOD, in his individual capacity; 24 STUART CLIVE, M.D., in his individual capacity; SAWTOOTH 25 CORRECTIONAL MEDICINE, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company; 26 ERIC WELLS, in his individual capacity; and, ANGIE TWITCHELL, 27 in her individual capacity, 28 1 Defendants. 2

3 ----oo0oo---- 4 Defendants Jerome County, Sheriff of Jerome County 5 George Oppedyk, and Deputy Sheriffs Marisella Ibarra, Austin 6 Rasmussen, Johnethan Davis, Matthew Spencer, Colton Crocket1, 7 Makaylee Booth, Jacob Wing, Austin Dixon, Salazar Almazan, Craig 8 Crouse, and J.D. Wood (collectively “Jerome County defendants”), 9 move for partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s first claim for 10 violations of the Fourth Amendment and third claim for false 11 imprisonment under Idaho law. (Docket No. 47.) 12 I. Factual and Procedural Background 13 Defendants Wood, Crouse, and Rasmussen transported 14 plaintiff to the Jerome County Jail after serving him with a 15 state arrest warrant on December 5, 2019. (Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ 16 Statement of Undisputed Facts (“DSUF”) ¶ 2-3 (Docket No. 53-2).) 17 At the jail, defendant Davis, with defendant Crocket present for 18 parts of the process, booked plaintiff and determined that his 19 birthplace was in Mexico. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 13.) Sheriff Oppedyk 20 maintained a policy that required deputy sheriffs “to contact 21 [i]mmigration authorities” if they learn the arrestee: (1) “was 22 born outside of the United States;” (2) “has no identification or 23 driver’s license;” (3) “cannot provide a Social Security number;” 24 or (4) “admits to being in the country illegally.” (Id. ¶ 11; 25 Aff. of Marisella Ibarra, Ex. A (Docket No. 47-10).) 26

27 1 Throughout the record this individual’s last name is spelled “Crocket” or “Crockett.” The court will follow the 28 spelling in the original caption of this action. 1 “Follow[ing] jail policy,” Davis contacted the federal 2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) by telephone. (DSUF ¶ 3 8.) Plaintiff spoke with the ICE agent on the phone and stated, 4 at minimum: his name, age, birthplace, parents’ age, and parents’ 5 birthplace. (Id.) 6 “Shortly thereafter,” ICE emailed a Department of 7 Homeland Security Form I-247A Immigration Detainer (“the 8 detainer”) and a Form I-200 administrative warrant (“the 9 warrant”) for plaintiff to the Jerome County Jail. (Id. ¶ 9; 10 Aff. of Ibarra, Ex. B, Pl.’s Jail File, DEF 31-33.) The detainer 11 stated that there was probable cause that plaintiff is a 12 removable alien based on “the pendency of ongoing removal 13 proceedings” against him. (Id. at DEF 31-32 (“Detainer”).) The 14 detainer requested that the Jerome County Jail maintain custody 15 of plaintiff “for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time 16 when [he] would otherwise” be released from custody. (Id.) 17 The warrant also stated that an authorized immigration 18 officer had determined there was probable cause to believe that 19 plaintiff was “removable from the United States” based upon “the 20 execution of a charging document to initiate removal proceedings 21 against” plaintiff and “statements made voluntarily by 22 [plaintiff] to an immigration officer and/or other reliable 23 evidence” indicating that he was removable. (Id. at DEF 33 24 (“Warrant”).) 25 An Idaho state magistrate judge ordered plaintiff’s 26 release on his own recognizance in connection with the state law 27 violations at approximately 1:00 p.m. on December 5, 2019. (DSUF 28 ¶ 10; Pl.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“PSUF”) ¶ 14 (Docket 1 No. 53-2); Decl. of Jennifer Schrack Dempsey, Ex. F (Docket No. 2 53-1)2.) Plaintiff was released to the custody of an ICE agent 3 at approximately 6:00 a.m. on December 6, 2019 –- the transfer 4 was handled by defendant Almazan. (DSUF ¶ 10.) 5 II. Legal Standard 6 “Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the 7 evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, 8 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Acosta v. 9 City Nat’l Corp., 922 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2019). A material 10 fact is one that could affect the outcome of the suit, and a 11 genuine issue is one that could permit a reasonable trier of fact 12 to enter a verdict in the non-moving party’s favor. Anderson v. 13 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 14 The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial 15 burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material 16 fact and can satisfy this burden by presenting evidence that 17 negates an essential element of the non-moving party’s 18 case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). 19 Alternatively, the movant can demonstrate that the non-moving 20 party cannot provide evidence to support an essential element 21 upon which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. 22 III. Fourth Amendment (Claim One) 23 2 Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice 24 (Docket No. 53-2 at 11 n.3, 12 n.4) of the state court order releasing plaintiff (Decl. of Dempsey, Ex. F) and the Notice to 25 Appear issued by the Department of Homeland Security in plaintiff’s immigration case (Id., Ex. G). Because defendants do 26 not object, the court takes judicial notice of the existence of 27 the two documents as they are matters of public record. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 28 2001). 1 Plaintiff alleges the Jerome County defendants violated 2 his Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him for an alleged civil 3 immigration violation past the time he was released from custody 4 on his criminal matter. (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 46-50 5 (Docket No. 22).) 6 A. Uninvolved Deputy Sheriffs 7 Defendants Spencer, Booth, Wing, and Dixon were working 8 as detention deputies at the Jerome County Jail on December 5-6, 9 2019, but beyond that, there is no evidence regarding their 10 involvement in the episode giving rise to plaintiff’s Fourth 11 Amendment claim. (DSUF ¶ 13.) 12 Defendants Crouse, Rasmussen, and Wood initially 13 arrested plaintiff based on a state arrest warrant and 14 transported him to the Jerome County Jail, and those actions are 15 not relevant to plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim. It is 16 undisputed that these individuals had no further contact with 17 plaintiff. (DSUF ¶ 6.) 18 Plaintiff has not raised a genuine dispute of material 19 fact about these deputies’ involvement in the alleged Fourth 20 Amendment violation. Accordingly, defendants Spencer, Booth, 21 Wing, Dixon, Crouse, Rasmussen, and Wood will be granted summary 22 judgment on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim. 23 B. Liability for Remaining Jerome County Defendants 24 Plaintiff argues that under Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 25 387 (2012) the Jerome County defendants could not detain him 26 pursuant to the ICE detainer and warrant absent a formal 27 agreement under Title 8 U.S.C. section 1357(g). (Pl.’s Resp. at 28 1 3-4.)3 However, under federal law, there are two statutory 2 schemes under which state and local officials may work with ICE. 3 The Department of Homeland Security may enter into a formal 4 agreement with a state or local government, which deputizes them 5 to carry out federal immigration law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1- 6 9). Or, where no formal agreement exists, state and local 7 officials may still “communicate with the Attorney General 8 regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or 9 otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General in the 10 identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not 11 lawfully present in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 1357(g)(10)(A-B). 13 Here, although Jerome County did not have a formal 14 agreement with the Department of Homeland Security under § 15 1357(g)(1-9), it was authorized to cooperate with the Attorney 16 General under § 1357(g)(10)(A-B). The Supreme Court in Arizona 17 considered what it means to “cooperate” with ICE under Title 8 18 U.S.C. section 1357(g)(10)(B). Arizona, 567 U.S. at 410. The 19 Supreme Court held that cooperation does not “incorporate the 20 unilateral decision of state officers to arrest an alien for 21 being removable absent any request, approval or other instruction 22 3 Plaintiff contends he was not served with the detainer 23 and warrant in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. (Pl.’s Resp. at 13.) The parties dispute whether the 24 deputies or ICE was to serve the documents. Regardless, plaintiff’s claim against the Jerome County defendants is 25 pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment –- plaintiff cannot raise this new claim, if he is attempting to do 26 so, in his response to a motion for summary judgment. See Chavez 27 v. Wynar, 536 F. Supp. 3d 517, 535 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“Plaintiffs may not raise a new claim or theory of liability for the first 28 time in response to a motion for summary judgment.”). 1 from the [f]ederal [g]overnment.” Id. Cooperation includes 2 scenarios in which state and local officials “participate in a 3 joint task force,” “provide operational support in executing a 4 warrant, or allow federal immigration officials to gain access to 5 detainees held in state facilities.” Id. 6 The type of cooperation endorsed by the Supreme Court 7 is what the Jerome County defendants chose to engage in and is 8 reasonable. The Jerome County defendants did not take 9 “unilateral action” to detain plaintiff when they learned he was 10 born outside the United States. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 410. 11 Rather, they acted upon a facially valid detainer request and 12 warrant from ICE and the authorization granted in 8 U.S.C. 13 section 1357(g)(10)(B) to “cooperate” with ICE to “provide 14 operational support in executing a warrant, or allow [ICE] to 15 gain access to” plaintiff. See id.4 16 When cooperating with ICE, under the collective 17 knowledge doctrine, the Jerome County defendants were permitted 18 4 ICE uses Form I-247 Immigration Detainers to notify 19 “another law enforcement agency that [ICE] seeks custody of an alien presently in custody of that agency, for the purpose of 20 arresting and removing the alien.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a). The detainers request that a state or local agency notify ICE of the 21 alien’s release date and maintain custody of the alien up to 48 22 hours. 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d). In connection with the detainers, ICE has a policy of 23 providing signed administrative warrants based on probable cause. See Gonzales v. U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf’t, 975 F.3d 788, 799 24 (9th Cir. 2020) (noting that this is the policy though it is not included in the detainer regulation.). The Attorney General “can 25 exercise discretion to issue a warrant for an alien’s arrest ‘pending a decision on whether an alien is to be removed’” or 26 wait until “an alien is ordered removed after a hearing.” 27 Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387, 407-08 (2012) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226; 8 C.F.R. § 241.2(a)(1)). 28 1 to rely on a probable cause determination made by an authorized 2 immigration official. The collective knowledge doctrine “allows 3 courts to impute police officers’ collective knowledge to the 4 officer conducting a stop, search, or arrest.” See U.S. v. 5 Villasenor, 608 F.3d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 2010). The doctrine 6 applies where officers are working together but “have not 7 explicitly communicated the facts each has independently learned” 8 or where one officer “with direct personal knowledge of all the 9 facts necessary . . . directs or requests that another officer . 10 . . conduct an arrest.” Id. (quotations omitted). There is no 11 evidence that the Jerome County defendants were aware of any 12 facts that would make it unreasonable to rely on ICE’s 13 determination of probable cause. 14 Plaintiff argues that despite the ICE warrant and 15 detainer there was no probable cause to detain him. (See Pl.’s 16 Resp. at 9 (Docket No. 53).) This court follows the lead of 17 other district courts and determines that detaining individuals 18 based upon requests by ICE in the form of facially valid 19 detainers and warrants which state the basis for probable cause 20 is not unconstitutional. See Lopez-Lopez v. Cnty. of Allegan, 21 321 F. Supp. 3d 794, 801 (W.D. Mich. 2018) (holding that a Fourth 22 Amendment violation was not plausibly plead where ICE had “issued 23 a facially valid administrative warrant” and detainer request 24 which both “recited the basis for probable cause”); Tenorio- 25 Serrano v. Driscoll, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1066 (D. Ariz. 2018) 26 (on a motion for preliminary injunction, the court determined 27 that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on his argument that 28 complying with ICE detainers and warrants would violate the 1 Fourth Amendment).5 2 Plaintiff also argues that the warrant was invalid 3 because it was not reviewed by a neutral and detached magistrate. 4 (See Pl.’s Resp. at 15.) However, the Immigration and 5 Nationality Act expressly authorizes ICE to arrest and detain 6 aliens pending removal decisions “on a warrant issued by the 7 Attorney General.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Ninth Circuit 8 has stated that “detaining persons for more than 48 hours 9 pursuant to an immigration detainer” “requires a prompt probable 10 cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate judge to 11 justify” continued detention. Gonzales v. U.S. Immigr. and 12 Customs Enf’t, 975 F.3d 788, 823-26 (9th Cir. 2020). However, 13 this case does not involve a situation where more than 48 hours 14 had passed, and therefore, there was no need for a probable cause 15 determination by a neutral and detached magistrate. Judicial 16 approval of the warrant is not required in these circumstances. 17 See Tenorio-Serrano, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 1066 (holding the same). 18 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment 19 rights were not violated when he was detained pursuant to the ICE 20 detainer and warrant. Therefore, the moving defendants’ motion 21 for summary judgment on the first claim of plaintiff’s complaint 22 will be granted. See Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 916 (9th 23 Cir. 1994) (“[T]he municipal defendant[] cannot be held liable 24 because no constitutional violation occurred.”)6

25 5 To the extent that the district court’ decision in Lopez-Flores v. Douglas County, No. 6:19-cv-00904, 2020 WL 26 2820143 (D. Or. May 30, 2020), may suggest a contrary result, 27 this court declines to follow it.

28 6 For the first time in plaintiff’s response to the 1 C. Qualified Immunity 2 Even if there were a constitutional violation, the 3 individual Jerome County defendants are entitled to assert 4 qualified immunity. In actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 5 doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials 6 ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does 7 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 8 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson 9 v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. 10 Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Qualified “immunity 11 protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly 12 violate the law.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) 13 (quotations omitted). 14 To determine whether an officer is entitled 15 to qualified immunity, the court considers: (1) whether there has 16 been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the

17 instant motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues that Jerome 18 County “had [an unconstitutional] written policy and practice of unilaterally contacting ICE when it learned a detainee was born 19 outside of [the] U.S.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 23.) Plaintiff argues that but for this policy of contacting ICE the deputies would not 20 have unlawfully detained plaintiff. (Id. at 24.) Jerome County admits that Sheriff Oppedyk, as the policymaker, chose to 21 maintain this policy. (DSUF ¶ 11; Aff. of George Oppedyk ¶ 1 22 (Docket No. 47-11).) Regardless of whether the policy itself is 23 constitutional, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, and therefore, Jerome County cannot be held liable. The court notes 24 that at least one district court has held that a jail’s identical policy of contacting ICE anytime a foreign-born individual is 25 brought to the jail violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Parada v. Anoka Cnty., 481 F. Supp. 3d 26 888, 902-03 (D. Minn. 2020). Plaintiff has not alleged a claim 27 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore, the court does not decide the constitutionality of the jail’s policy 28 of contacting ICE on these grounds. 1 officer’s conduct violated “clearly established” federal 2 law. See Sharp v. Cnty. of Orange, 871 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 3 2017) (citing Kirkpatrick v. Cnty. of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 788 4 (9th Cir. 2016)). Therefore, even if there is a constitutional 5 violation, the sheriff and deputies could be entitled to 6 qualified immunity if there was no clearly established law 7 prohibiting their conduct at the time of the incident. 8 The clearly established inquiry “serves the aim of 9 refining the legal standard and is solely a question of law for 10 the judge.” Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 556 F.3d 11 1075, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court has noted that the 12 law “does not require a case directly on point for a right to be 13 clearly established, [but] existing precedent must have placed 14 the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” White, 15 137 S. Ct. at 551 (quotations and citations omitted). 16 With the above framework in mind, the law was not 17 clearly established such that reasonable officers on December 5- 18 6, 2019 would have known that honoring a federal administrative 19 warrant and detainer from ICE which stated the basis for probable 20 cause was unconstitutional. To the contrary, there was at least 21 one court decision at the time of the incident holding just the 22 opposite, which would suggest to reasonable officers in the 23 situation that the conduct here was permitted. See Lopez-Lopez, 24 321 F. Supp. 3d at 801 (holding that a Fourth Amendment violation 25 was not plausibly plead where ICE had “issued a facially valid 26 administrative warrant” and detainer request which both “recited 27 the basis for probable cause”). 28 Further, as discussed above, based on 8 U.S.C. section 1 1357(g)(10)(B)’s allowance of cooperation with ICE, and the 2 Supreme Court’s holding in Arizona regarding what constitutes 3 cooperation, reasonable officers in the position of the sheriff 4 and his deputies would not reasonably understand their conduct to 5 be impermissible. Accordingly, even if plaintiff could establish 6 a violation of his constitutional rights, the individual 7 defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity on the first 8 claim of plaintiff’s complaint. 9 IV. False Imprisonment (Claim Three) 10 Based on the same facts as set forth in the Fourth 11 Amendment claim, plaintiff alleges the Jerome County defendants 12 falsely imprisoned him.7 The Jerome County defendants argue that 13 they are immune from liability under Idaho Code section 6-904.8 14 A government entity and its employees acting within the 15 scope of their employment are immune from liability for false 16 imprisonment absent evidence that they acted with malice or 17 criminal intent. See Idaho Code § 6-904(3); Tapp v. City of 18 Idaho Falls, No. 4:20-cv-00476, 2021 WL 5331770, at *10 (D. Idaho 19 June 14, 2021). Malice means “the intentional commission of a 20 wrongful or unlawful act without legal justification or excuse, 21 whether or not injury was intended.” James v. City of Boise, 160 22 Idaho 466, 484 (2016). Criminal intent means “the intentional 23 commission of what the person knows to be a crime.” Id. 24 7 Plaintiff’s response cites to Idaho Code section 18- 25 2901 to define false imprisonment; however, that section is the criminal statute for false imprisonment and does not apply here. 26 (See Pl.’s Resp. at 28.) 27 8 Jerome County defendants erroneously cite § 6-904B, 28 though the correct statute is § 6-904. 1 Plaintiff’s arguments and evidence to support his claim 2 that the sheriff and deputies acted with malice or criminal 3 intent appear to be based on their alleged refusal to provide 4 adequate medical care to plaintiff. (Pl.’s Resp. at 28-29.) 5 However, those acts pertain to plaintiff’s second claim for 6 inadequate medical care, which is not at issue in this motion. 7 Plaintiff also argues that the sheriff and deputies incorrectly 8 held plaintiff based on the detainer as it was a “request and 9 does not require mandatory action.” (Id. at 29.) As discussed 10 above, defendants were allowed to hold plaintiff based on the 11 detainer and warrant, and regardless, complying with ICE’s 12 request is not evidence of malice or criminal intent. 13 Plaintiff does not present any evidence to create a 14 genuine dispute of fact, nor does he even plead in his complaint, 15 that the sheriff and deputies acted with malice or criminal 16 intent to circumvent immunity under Idaho Code section 6-904(3). 17 (See FAC ¶ 55-58 (no allegations about the sheriff and deputies’ 18 malice or criminal intent).) 19 Jerome County is also immune from liability on 20 plaintiff’s state law claim, regardless of whether the employees 21 acted with malice or criminal intent. Under Hoffer v. City of 22 Boise, 151 Idaho 400, 402 (2011), “[t]he plain language of [Idaho 23 Code section 6-904(3)] exempts governmental entities from 24 liability for the torts it lists, whether or not there has been 25 an allegation of malice or criminal intent.” Accordingly, Jerome 26 County defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the false 27 imprisonment claim will be granted. 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Jerome County 1 defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 47) as to 2 plaintiff’s first and third claims be, and same hereby is, 3 GRANTED. 4 Plaintiff’s second claim under the Fourteenth and 5 Eighth Amendments for inadequate medical care against all 6 defendants remains pending in this action. 7 | Dated: July 21, 2022 rh tteome hd. bi—~ 93 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14