Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00648/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00648-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Wrongful Death

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Renato Ariza Dominguez and Maria Clara

Leonor Rivera Cordero, as surviving parents of

decedent, Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera,

and as successors in interest,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Nichols William Corbett, 

Defendant, ______________________________________

Renato Ariza Dominguez, individually as the

surviving Father of Francisco Javier Dominguez,

and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of

Francisco Javier, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

United States of America, et. al., 

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 08-648 TUC DCB (BPV)

CV 09-474 TUC DCB (BPV)

O R D E R

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco on September 11,

2009, pursuant to Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona

(Local Rules), Rule (Civil) 72.1(a). On August 5, 2010, Magistrate Judge Velasco issued a

Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. 36.) He recommended granting Defendants

Motion to Dismiss Portions of the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend in part and

without leave to amend in part. (Doc. 23.) He recommended denying, with leave to re-urge it,

the Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 23.) The

Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as the findings of fact and conclusions

Case 4:08-cv-00648-DCB-BPV Document 38 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

of law of this Court and grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss and strike

portions of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 23.).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge, are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

When the parties object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no

objections are filed, the district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file written

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 (party objecting

to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written objections). To

date, no objections have been filed. The Government filed a Notice of non-objection with a

reservation of rights as to the R&R that under the Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA) a claim may

be based on allegations that “policy-making defendants promulgated polices and practices

condoning misconduct, criminal activity and constitutional violations.” (R&R at 19.) These

allegations are being dismissed, without prejudice.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

These consolidated cases arise from a shooting by Defendant Nicholas Corbett, a Border

Patrol Agent, during the apprehension of several individuals for illegally crossing the MexicoUnited States border, which killed Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera (Dominguez). Plaintiffs

filed a Bivens claim against Defendants alleging constitutional violations in CV 08-648 TUC

DCB. Plaintiffs filed tort claims against Defendants under the FTCA in CV 09-474 TUC DCB.

Case 4:08-cv-00648-DCB-BPV Document 38 Filed 09/10/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Plaintiffs’ Second Claim alleged in the FTCA Amended Complaint is for negligence.

Defendants argue this claim fails, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. R.12(b)(6), because it is conclusory

and devoid of any well pled factual allegations to raise a plausible claim. The Magistrate Judge

found the factual allegations sufficient to establish what the claim is, but found the FTCA

Amended Complaint fails under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) because it does not permit the court to infer more

than the mere possibility of misconduct. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the

motion to dismiss the Second Claim in the FTCA Amended Complaint with leave to amend it.

(R&R at6-10.)

The Third Claim in the FTCA Amended Complaint alleges that the employees of the

federal government had a duty to use appropriate procedures in the hiring, retention, and

supervision of Border Patrol Agent Corbett. Defendants challenged this claim as an untimely

Bivens claim against supervisors and that constitutional tort claims are precluded under the

FTCA. As alleged, the claim fails to name any individual employee, who acting within the

scope of their employment, committed a tort against Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs argue this is because

the specific United States employees true identities are unknown at this time. The Magistrate

Judge recognized that the FTCA does not support claims based directly on constitutional

violations, and that generally negligent supervision claims fall within the discretionary function

exception to the FTCA. (R&R at 12.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing with

prejudice this part of the Third Claim. The Magistrate Judge, however, noted that negligent

supervision will not be considered discretionary where it promotes illegal or unconstitutional

conduct. Id. at 12-13. As to this part of the Third Claim, the Magistrate Judge recommended it

be dismissed for failure to allege a sufficient factual basis to raise it as a plausible claim, but that

dismissal be without prejudice to amendment. Id. at 13-14.

The Second Claim in the Bivens Amended Complaint alleged supervisory responsibility

for violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights under color of law. Recognizing that there can be no

vicarious liability under Bivens, the Magistrate Judge noted that “a plaintiff must plead that each

Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the

Case 4:08-cv-00648-DCB-BPV Document 38 Filed 09/10/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Constitution.” (R&R at 16) (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948). Again, the Magistrate Judge

found that, here, the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently state facts to support such a case. Specifically,

the Bivens Amended Complaint fails to name “any individual supervisory official, it fails to

identify how the actions of individual officials could foreseeably have caused the violations

alleged in the complaint.” (R&R at 17.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing this

claim with prejudice because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Relation back provisions,

Fed. R. Civ. P. R.15(c)(2), will not allow Plaintiffs to add supervisors, individually, as they

become known because it applies only to actions against the United States or its officers or

agencies when sued in their official capacities. Id. at 17.

The Magistrate Judge recommended denying as moot the Defendants’ Motion to Strike

portions of the amended complaints as being impertinent and scandalous, and because the

allegations would create the potential for unfair prejudice against the United States. He

recommended the Motion to Strike be denied, without prejudice to it being reurged subsequent

to any amendments to the pleadings.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

and recommendations to which objection is made.") To the extent that no objection has been

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th

Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see also,

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation).

While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court

nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily

Case 4:08-cv-00648-DCB-BPV Document 38 Filed 09/10/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The Court

finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact. United

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court accepts and adopts the

R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in

the R&R, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants Motion to Dismiss and

Strike Portions of the Amended Complaints (doc. 23). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (doc. # 36) is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss (doc. 23) be granted in part, as

follows: 1) FTCA Amended Complaint, Second Claim, without prejudice; 2) FTCA Amended

Complaint, Third Claim, with prejudice as to allegations of constitutional torts, and without

prejudice as to allegations that policy-making defendants promulgated policies and practices

condoning misconduct, criminal activity and constitutional violations, and 3) Bivens Amended

Complaint, Second Claim, with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (doc. 23) is DENIED, without

prejudice to it being reurged subsequent to any amendment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Portions

of the [Original] Complaint (doc. 20) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge

Glenda E. Edmonds for all pretrial proceedings and Report and Recommendation in accordance

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), Rules (Civil) 72.1.

DATED this 8th day of September, 2010.

Case 4:08-cv-00648-DCB-BPV Document 38 Filed 09/10/10 Page 5 of 5