Opinion
3:18-CV-2254
07-25-2023
JUAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. JOHN CHULOCK, et al. Defendants.
ORDER
Robert D. Mariani, United States District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 25th DAY OF JULY, 2023, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 95), Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Docs. 96, 97), and all relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. 95) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
2. Plaintiff's Objections (Docs. 96, 97) are OVERRULED.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiffs Objections repeatedly cite to the allegations set forth in the Complaint, suggest these factual allegations must be taken as true, and frequently rely on the motion to dismiss standard. (See e.g., Doc. 96, ¶¶ 3,4,5; Doc. 97, at 1-6, 8). However, Defendants' motion is one for summary judgment, and thus Plaintiffs assertions that Judge Carlson erred in not crediting certain factual allegations set forth in the Complaint are without merit. Regardless, as Judge Carlson properly acknowledged after review of the Defendants' statement of material facts and Plaintiffs response, “[w]hile in many instances [the parties'] competing factual narratives would preclude a summary judgment disposition of this case, there has been a supervening change in the law which ... renders these factual disputes largely meaningless.” (Doc. 95, at 4). Here, Plaintiffs substantive Objections are copied verbatim from the portion of his brief in opposition to summary judgment addressing Defendants' Bivens and Egbert argument. (Compare Doc. 93, at 18-23 and Doc. 97, at 8-13). Judge Carlson's R&R correctly rejected Plaintiffs arguments by thoroughly addressing Bivens, its progeny, and the effect of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Egbert. The Court agrees with both the R&R's recitation of the law and its application of the law to the facts and legal claims in this case. As Judge Carlson noted, this Court “join[s a] rising tide of case law which has followed Egbert and have held that efforts to imply a Bivens claim related to immigration enforcement entail a ‘new context"' and, further, that have found “the work of immigration agents, who conduct specialized enforcement duties under the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to both immigration enforcement and national security, entails a host of ‘special factors' which counsel strongly against any extension of Bivens." (Doc. 95, at 1516) (collecting cases); see also, Bissereth v. United States, 2023 WL 4373888 (D.Mass. July 6, 2023)). Finally, upon review of Plaintiffs Objections to the R&R, it is evident that Plaintiffs arguments largely consist of policy disagreements with the structure and authority of ICE, including its “administrative oversight mechanisms”, as well as veiled disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert. Nonetheless, this Court is bound by the lengthy precedent addressing the application of Bivens, and the Supreme Court's most recent addition to this issue in Egbert. Mindful of its obligation to apply the higher court's precedent and to avoid infringing on Congress's power and authority, the Court will overrule Plaintiffs Objections.
3. The Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 85), filed by Defendants David Clark, Stephen Carlo, and Paul Wiss, is GRANTED.
4. The action is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings consistent with this Order.