Luz A. Nunez v. Brandon Jones, et al.

Pendleton, Oregon civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on a Blevins theory.





Plaintiff Luz Nunez brought this action against Defendants, five federal officers. Plaintiff alleges the federal officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully arresting her after a traffic stop. Plaintiff sues the federal officers in their individual capacities for monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).



* * *



Plaintiff is a Hispanic woman born in the United States and is a United States citizen. Luz Nunez Decl. ("Pl.'s Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF 131; Second Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF 81. She is fluent in English and Spanish, and she was 19 years old on September 19, 2017. Pl.'s Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.



On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff was driving in Ontario, Oregon, with two Hispanic male passengers: her then-boyfriend and his friend. Id. ¶ 3. Both male passengers were illegally present in the country and had criminal records. Defs.' Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits[2]("NOL”), Ex. B at 5-6, 70, ECF 116-1. At around 3:30 p.m., Defendants Paul Maple, Reo Hope, and Brandon Jones pulled Plaintiff over in unmarked cars. Paul Maple Decl. ("Maple Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF 117; Reo Hope Decl. ("Hope Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF 118; Brandon Jones Decl. ("Jones Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF 119. Defendants Maple, Hope, and Jones ("ICE Defendants”) are all deportation officers with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE”). Maple Decl.¶ 1; Hope Decl. ¶ 1; Jones Decl. ¶ 1; Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 5. In pulling Plaintiff over, Defendants were executing an arrest warrant for Plaintiff's boyfriend

based on his immigration status and criminal record. NOL Ex. A at 2, Ex B at 4-7, ECF 166-1; NOL Ex. M at 92, ECF 120-1; Jones Decl. ¶ 2; Hope Decl. ¶ 2.



Once Plaintiff's car was stopped, Defendant Maple approached the driver's side while Defendant Jones approached the passenger side. Maple Decl. ¶ 4; Jones Decl. ¶ 5. Defendant Jones asked Plaintiff's boyfriend what his name was. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 8. Plaintiff then touched her boyfriend and told him to "wait” in Spanish. Id.; Jones Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff began using her phone to record what was happening, and Defendant Jones told her to stop. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff's boyfriend exited the vehicle, was handcuffed, and taken to Defendant Jones's vehicle. NOL Ex. N ("Maple Dep.”) at 104 (81:24-25), 106 (86:8-22), Ex. O ("Hope Dep.”) at 126 (59:15-19), 129 (70:15-17), ECF 120-1. Then Defendant Maple ordered Plaintiff to exit her car and place her hands on the hood. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 11; Maple Decl. ¶ 6.



As Plaintiff got out of the car and moved her arms to comply with Defendant Maple's request, she yelled, "don't touch me” and jerked her right arm. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 11; Maple Decl. ¶ 6; Hope Dep. 130-31 (78:21-22). The parties dispute which direction Plaintiff swung her right arm. Defendants claim Plaintiff swung her right arm toward Defendant Maple to try to strike him. Maple Decl. ¶ 6; Hope Decl. ¶ 4; Jones Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff maintains that she moved her right elbow away from Defendant Maple to prevent him from grabbing her. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 11. After Plaintiff moved her right arm, Defendant Maple grabbed her arm just above the wrist, twisted it behind her back, and pressed Plaintiff against her car. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 11; Maple Dep. 108 (96:13-24). While Defendant Maple pressed Plaintiff against her car, Defendant Hope threatened Plaintiff with pepper spray. Id.; Jones Decl. ¶ 8; Hope Dep. 127 (61:22-25). During Plaintiff's physical confrontation with the ICE Defendants, both male passengers were handcuffed in

officer vehicles and could not view the confrontation. NOL Ex. M at 93, ECF 120-1; NOL Ex. C at 11, Ex. F at 42, 43 (9:18-21, 10:5-11), Ex. D at 16, ECF 116-1.



The ICE Defendants asked Plaintiff questions about her citizenship and identity. One of the officers asked Plaintiff where she was from, and Plaintiff responded that she was "from here,” meaning the United States. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 15; NOL Ex. F at 59 (26:3-7), ECF 116-1; Maple Dep. 111 (147:1-9). Defendants Jones and Maple asked Plaintiff for identification, and she gave them her Oregon driver's license. Maple Decl. ¶ 7; NOL Ex. F at 43 (10:24-25), ECF 116-1. Plaintiff only spoke to Defendants in English. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 19.



Eventually, Ontario police officers arrived at the scene wearing body cameras. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 17. Around 5:30 p.m., Defendant Jones placed Plaintiff under arrest. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 19; Jones Decl. ¶ 11. According to Plaintiff, she was not given a reason for her arrest. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 20. Defendant Jones handcuffed Plaintiff and placed a chain around her waist before putting her in the back of his vehicle. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 19.



Defendant Jones transported Plaintiff 55 miles away to the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS”) office in Boise, Idaho. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 19; Jones Decl. ¶ 11. At the Boise office, Plaintiff was photographed, fingerprinted, and placed in a cell. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 19.



An hour or two after Plaintiff arrived at the DHS office, Defendants Richard Pattee and Richard Cross ("DHS Defendants”) interviewed Plaintiff. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 27; NOL Ex. F at 35 (2:2-7), ECF 116-1. The DHS Defendants told Plaintiff that the ICE Defendants arrested her because they "had no idea what [her] status was[.]” NOL Ex. F at 37 (4:2-4), ECF 116-1. Upon confirming that Plaintiff was a United States citizen, Plaintiff was released without any charges or conditions at 7:30 p.m. Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 29. Plaintiff was not provided any means of getting

home. Id. Plaintiff's family member picked her up and drove her to her car in Ontario, Oregon, later that night. Id.



The next day, Defendant Pattee contacted the United States Attorney's Office in Eugene, Oregon, "to determine if there was enough probable cause to charge [Plaintiff] with assault on a federal agent.” NOL Ex. M at 94, ECF 120-1. The United States Attorney's Office declined to prosecute Plaintiff for any assault charges. Id.; Jones Decl. ¶ 12. Subsequently, DHS closed the investigation. NOL Ex. M at 94, ECF 120-1.

Nunez v. Jones, 2:18-cv-00375-HL (D. Or. May 03, 2023)





"The Bivens Act is a federal law that allows individuals to file lawsuits against federal officials for violating their constitutional rights. The law was created by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, in which the Court held that individuals have a right to sue federal officials for violating their Fourth Amendment rights.



The Bivens Act does not explicitly list all of the constitutional rights that can be enforced through a Bivens lawsuit, but the Supreme Court has held that the Bivens Act applies to a wide range of constitutional rights, including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment.



In order to succeed in a Bivens lawsuit, the plaintiff must show that a federal official violated their constitutional rights and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the violation. The plaintiff must also show that there is no other adequate remedy available for the violation.



Bivens lawsuits can be a powerful tool for individuals who have been wronged by federal officials. However, Bivens lawsuits can also be difficult to win, as the Supreme Court has placed a number of restrictions on Bivens claims.



Here are some examples of Bivens lawsuits:



A person who is unlawfully searched and seized by federal agents may file a Bivens lawsuit for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

A person who is arrested and detained without probable cause by federal agents may file a Bivens lawsuit for violation of their Fifth Amendment rights.

A person who is denied a fair trial by a federal judge may file a Bivens lawsuit for violation of their Sixth Amendment rights.

A person who is subjected to excessive force by federal agents may file a Bivens lawsuit for violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.



If you believe that you have been wronged by a federal official, you should consult with an attorney to discuss whether you may have a Bivens claim."



Google Bard

Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted.