Life Savers Concepts Association of California et al v. WYNAR et al

Filing 180

ORDER GRANTING 162 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/29/2024. (blflc3, COURT STAFF)(Filed on 2/29/2024)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

RAQUEL CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

ROAHN WYNAR,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-02252-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
[Re: ECF No. 162]

12
13

After six years of whittling down allegations in a once-sprawling complaint, Defendant

14

Roahn Wynar brings this motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the case’s final cause of

15

action, a Bivens claim alleging that Defendant unlawfully detained and questioned Plaintiff Raquel

16

Chavez during the execution of a search warrant in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

17

ECF No. 162 (“Mot.”); ECF No. 169 (“Reply”). Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 167

18

(“Opp.”). Like the instant action, Bivens too has been pared down in recent years, as determined

19

by the Supreme Court’s recent Abbasi, Hernandez, and Egbert decisions. In light of these recent

20

decisions and after careful consideration, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

A.

23

The following allegations are taken from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which

Factual Background

24

the Court takes as true for this motion. ECF No. 70 (“SAC”). On the morning of July 11, 2017, at

25

around 9:20 a.m., Wynar and other FBI agents executed a search warrant on Life Savers Concepts

26

Association (“Life Savers”) offices in Sunnyvale, California. Id. ¶¶ 23–25. During the search,

27

four Life Savers employees, including Plaintiff Raquel Chavez (“Raquel”) were held in the main

28

office without access to their cell phones. Id. ¶¶ 35, 42. After the other three Life Savers

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

employees were released, Plaintiff continued to be detained. Id. ¶ 54, 56. While detained,

2

Plaintiff was placed in a chair, prevented from leaving, and questioned by Wynar and another

3

agent. Id. ¶¶ 58–64. Plaintiff was detained and questioned for four hours, long after the search

4

concluded at 10:00 a.m. Id. ¶ 97.

5

B.

6

The SAC alleges a host of constitutional violations, but six years of litigation have pared

Procedural Background

7

the allegations down to a single remaining claim: Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Bivens claim for

8

unreasonable detention and interrogation. ECF No. 84; ECF No. 121 (“SJ Order”) at 25; ECF No.

9

140 at 5. Specifically, the Court found at summary judgment that a triable issue of fact remained

10

as to “whether Defendant detained Raquel incommunicado and used the threat of continued

11

detention to coerce Raquel to submit to an interrogation, and in turn, whether Defendant’s conduct

12

violated Raquel’s Fourth Amendment rights as a matter of law.” SJ Order at 14. The Court

13

continued “that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether (1) Raquel voluntarily

14

consented to further questioning by Defendant or whether she was ordered to stay and answer

15

questions before she could depart; (2) the length of time that Raquel was detained after the other

16

Plaintiffs were released; and (3) whether Raquel was held incommunicado during her further

17

detention.” Id.

18
19

On September 1, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion. Trial is set for July 2024.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a

20
21

party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Rule 12(c) is a vehicle

22

for summary adjudication, but the standard is like that of a motion to dismiss.” Tibarom NV, Inc.

23

v. Shell Oil Prod. U.S., No. 3:08-cv-60-BES-VPC, 2008 WL 11404229, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 24,

24

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when,

25

taking all the allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

26

matter of law.” Rose v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 513 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2008) (brackets and

27

internal quotation marks omitted).

28

\\
2

1
2

DISCUSSION
In 1971, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time an implied right of action against

3

federal officers for constitutional violations. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.

4

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff Webster Bivens alleged that the officers

5

“manacled [him] in front of his wife and children, and threatened to arrest the entire family,”

6

“searched the apartment from stem to stern,” and took him “to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn,

7

where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search.” Id. at 389. The Court

8

held that Bivens was entitled to sue federal agents for damages arising out of the unlawful arrest

9

and search, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 389–90.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

III.

Since Bivens, the Supreme Court has fashioned new causes of action under the

11

Constitution only twice—first, for a former congressional staffer’s Fifth Amendment sex-

12

discrimination claim, see Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979); and second, for a federal

13

prisoner’s inadequate-care claim under the Eighth Amendment, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14

14

(1980). More common though, is the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognize an implied damages

15

remedy against federal officials. See Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 486 (2022) (the Court has

16

“declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations”)

17

(collecting cases). “Nonetheless, rather than dispense with Bivens altogether, [the Supreme Court

18

has] emphasized that recognizing a cause of action under Bivens is ‘a disfavored judicial

19

activity.’” Id. at 491 (quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 135 (2017)). “[I]f there are sound

20

reasons to think Congress might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedy[,] the courts

21

must refrain from creating [it].” Ibid. “‘[E]ven a single sound reason to defer to Congress’ is

22

enough to require a court to refrain from creating such a remedy.” Id. (quoting Nestle USA, Inc. v.

23

Doe, 593 U.S. 628, 635 (2021).

24

“To inform a court’s analysis of a proposed Bivens claim, [the Supreme Court’s] cases

25

have framed the inquiry as proceeding in two steps.” Id. at 492. “[T]he first question a court must

26

ask . . . is whether the claim arises in a new Bivens context[.]” Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 147. A case

27

presents a new context if it “is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided

28

by th[e Supreme Court].” Id. “Second, if a claim arises in a new context, a Bivens remedy is
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

unavailable if there are ‘special factors’ indicating that the Judiciary is at least arguably less

2

equipped than Congress to ‘weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to

3

proceed.’” Egbert, 596 U.S. at 492 (quoting Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 137). “While [the Supreme

4

Court’s] cases describe two steps, those steps often resolve to a single question: whether there is

5

any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.” Egbert,

6

596 U.S. at 492. The Court addresses the two Abbasi steps in turn.

7

A.

8

The Court first addresses whether Plaintiff’s claim arises in a new Bivens context; namely

9

whether it “is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by [the Supreme

New Context

10

Court].” Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 147. In Abbasi, the Supreme Court outlined the following non-

11

exhaustive “list of differences that are meaningful enough to make a given context a new one”:

12
13
14
15
16

A case might differ in a meaningful way because of [1] the rank of
the officers involved; [2] the constitutional right at issue; [3] the
generality or specificity of the official action; [4] the extent of judicial
guidance as to how an officer should respond to the problem or
emergency to be confronted; [5] the statutory or other legal mandate
under which the officer was operating; [6] the risk of disruptive
intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches; or
[7] the presence of potential special factors that previous Bivens cases
did not consider.

17

Id. at 139–40. The Supreme Court’s “understanding of a ‘new context’ is broad.” Hernandez v.

18

Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 743 (2020). The Supreme Court “regard[s] a context as ‘new’ if it is

19

‘different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court.’” Id. (quoting

20

Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 147).

21

Defendant’s arguments center on how the presence of a warrant affects the fifth Abbasi

22

factor, legal mandate. See Mot. at 1. Defendant argues that in Bivens, “the warrantless nature of

23

the intrusion was the central feature of that plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.” Id. at 4–5.

24

Defendant notes that here, “the alleged detention and interrogation of Plaintiff occurred during the

25

execution of a search warrant” which “implicitly carries limited authority to detain occupants of

26

the premises.” Id. at 6 (citing Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981)). Thus, Defendant

27

argues, because he was executing a search warrant, he was “acting, at least to some extent, under a

28

different legal mandate than the narcotics agents in Bivens.” Id. (quoting MT by & through
4

1

Zubkova v. United States, No. 3:22-cv-00171-BEN-KSC, 2023 WL 2468948, at *12 (S.D. Cal.

2

Mar. 10, 2023)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Plaintiff’s response seeks primarily to distinguish two cases cited in Defendant’s motion.

4

Plaintiff argues that the Court should not consider Massaquoi v. FBI, No. 22-55448, 2023 WL

5

5426738 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2023), because it is unpublished and does not address legal mandate.

6

Opp. at 4–5. Plaintiff further argues that the Court should reject Zubkova and a line of cases cited

7

therein because they concern “agents [who] lied or misrepresented facts in the application for

8

warrants” and that here, Plaintiff “is not challenging the validity of the warrant but the unlawful

9

manner of its execution.” Id. at 5–6.

10

As an initial matter, the Court will not engage in analysis of and comparison to lower court

11

Bivens cases. “In assessing whether a context is ‘new,’ the Supreme Court has instructed us not to

12

examine Bivens cases in the lower courts, but only ‘the three cases in which the [Supreme] Court

13

has implied a damages action.’” Pettibone v. Russell, 59 F.4th 449, 455 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting

14

Egbert, 596 U.S. at 492). Thus, the Court need not examine the facts in or make comparisons to

15

Massaquoi and Zubkova.

16

Instead, the Court must compare the legal mandates of the Bivens officers and Wynar. In

17

Bivens, plaintiff Webster Bivens alleged that following an arrest at and warrantless search of his

18

home, he “was taken to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked,

19

and subjected to a visual strip search.” 403 U.S. at 389. Here, the SAC alleges that Plaintiff was

20

detained and interrogated by Wynar during and after execution of the search warrant on Life

21

Savers. See SAC ¶¶ 23, 97, 114. Plaintiff alleges that the “FBI agents, specifically Wynar, and

22

including the Doe Defendants, made use of a search warrant for documents – all of which were

23

turned over – as a pretext to conduct interrogations of individuals who were detained without any

24

legal basis.” SAC ¶ 88. The SAC further alleges that “[a]lthough the search for documents

25

described in the search warrant was completed by approximately 10:00 a.m., FBI agents,

26

specifically Wynar, and including the Doe Defendants, remained on site for approximately four

27

hours during which time they detained all four plaintiffs and questioned them.” Id. ¶ 97.

28

With or without a warrant, a federal agent must conduct a search in a reasonable manner as
5

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

set forth in the Fourth Amendment. However, as Defendant points out, it is well-established that

2

the Supreme Court allows officers executing a search warrant “the limited authority to detain the

3

occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” Summers, 452 U.S. at 705; see

4

also Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98 (2005) (“An officer’s authority to detain incident to a

5

search is categorical; it does not depend on the ‘quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent

6

of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.’”) (quoting Summers, 452 U.S. at 705 n.19). This

7

additional authority alone is enough to show that Wynar was acting under a different legal

8

mandate than the agents in Bivens, who conducted the interrogation at a courthouse and without a

9

warrant. Because the federal agents in Bivens and here were both bound by the Fourth

10

Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the arguable extension of

11

Bivens is modest at best. But the Supreme Court has held that “even a modest extension is still an

12

extension.” Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 147. While Bivens and this case do involve similar allegations of

13

detention and interrogation and thus arguably present “‘almost parallel circumstances’ or a similar

14

‘mechanism of injury,’ these superficial similarities are not enough to support the judicial creation

15

of a cause of action.” Egbert, 596 U.S. at 495 (quoting Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 139). Finally, the

16

Court notes that other factors may distinguish this case from Bivens, but only addresses those

17

arguments set forth in Defendants’ motion.

18

At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that the alleged conduct is a clear Fourth Amendment

19

violation under Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003). Indeed, in Ganwich, the Ninth

20

Circuit held in a section 1983 action that an interrogation during the execution of a search warrant

21

was a Fourth Amendment violation. Id. at 1118. But the Court’s job here is to evaluate whether

22

the SAC alleges a new Bivens context (and specifically whether Wynar was acting under a

23

different legal mandate than the officers in Bivens), not whether the SAC alleges a Fourth

24

Amendment violation. Here, an answer to the latter question does not resolve the former; even if

25

the alleged interrogation was a Fourth Amendment violation, that has no bearing on how the

26

search warrant affects Wynar’s legal mandate.

27
28

Because Wynar was executing a search warrant, he was acting under a different legal
mandate than the Bivens officers, and the claim against him thus presents a new context.
6

1

B.

2

Having found that Plaintiff’s claim presents a new Bivens context, the Court turns to

3

Abbasi’s second step. This step requires the Court to “concentrate on whether the Judiciary is well

4

suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of

5

allowing a damages action to proceed.” Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 136. In Egbert, the Court emphasized

6

an “utmost deference” to Congress: “[i]f there are alternative remedial structures in place, ‘that

7

alone,’ like any special factor, is reason enough to ‘limit the power of the Judiciary to infer a new

8

Bivens cause of action.’” 596 U.S. at 493 (quoting Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 137).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Alternative Remedy

“[A]dministrative, statutory, equitable, and state law remedies” can be adequate alternative

10

remedial structures for the purpose of a Bivens analysis. Vega v. United States, 881 F.3d 1146,

11

1154 (9th Cir. 2018). Alternative remedies need not “provide complete relief for the plaintiff,”

12

Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 388 (1983), because “the focus is whether the Government has put in

13

place safeguards to prevent constitutional violations from recurring.” Egbert, 596 U.S. at 498

14

(internal citation omitted). “So long as Congress or the Executive has created a remedial process

15

that it finds sufficient to secure an adequate level of deterrence, the courts cannot second-guess

16

that calibration by superimposing a Bivens remedy.” Id.

17

Courts regularly find that administrative procedures for reporting alleged misconduct are

18

adequate alternative remedial structures sufficient to foreclose Bivens relief. See, e.g., Egbert, 596

19

U.S. at 497 (Border Patrol internal investigations of complaints are an alternative remedy); Mejia

20

v. Miller, 61 F.4th 663, 669 (9th Cir. 2023) (Bureau of Land Management complaints to the

21

“Office of Inspector General or other appropriate authority matters” provide administrative

22

alternative remedy); Pettibone, 59 F.4th at 457 (reporting to the Department of Homeland Security

23

Inspector General as an alternative remedial structure). Administrative remedies are also available

24

for conduct involving FBI agents. Massaquoi, 2023 WL 5426738, at *3 (“OIG procedures are

25

adequate alternative remedies for Bivens purposes” that constituted “a dispositive special factor”);

26

Zubkova, 2023 WL 2468948, at *13 (“the alternative remedy available through the [Federal Tort

27

Claims Act (“FTCA”)] constitutes a special factor that forecloses Plaintiffs’ Bivens claim”).

28

Defendant argues that the two alternative remedies found to be available in Massaquoi
7

1

(OIG complaint) and Zubkova (FTCA claim) are available here. Plaintiff does not dispute the

2

general availability of either alternative remedy, Opp. at 9-11, but noted at the hearing that an

3

FTCA claim is no longer available to Plaintiff due to the age of the case.
The Court agrees with Defendant that both an FTCA claim and an OIG complaint are

4
5

adequate alternative remedies available to address the conduct of FBI agents such as Defendant.

6

The existence of either, or in this case both, constitutes a special factor that is reason enough for

7

the Court not to infer a new Bivens cause of action. See Egbert, 596 U.S. at 493. That an FTCA

8

claim is no longer available to Plaintiff is not relevant to the Court’s analysis; all Egbert requires

9

of an alternative remedy is that it is “sufficient to secure an adequate level of deterrence,” not that

10

each remedy is available to Plaintiff. See id. at 498.
*

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

*

*

Defendant has met both Abbasi steps. First, Defendant has shown that he was acting under

12
13

a different legal mandate than the officers Bivens, and that Plaintiff’s claim is therefore a new

14

Bivens context. Second, Defendant shown that alternative remedies, an OIG complaint and an

15

FTCA action, are available, and each constitutes a special factor that alone is enough to limit

16

inferring a new Bivens cause of action. Thus, Plaintiff’s Bivens claim fails as a matter of law.

17

IV.

18
19

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Roahn Wynar’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: February 29, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
8