Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_14-cv-00443/USCOURTS-alnd-4_14-cv-00443-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

JOSEPH ANTHONY DANIEL, )

)

Plaintiff , )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:14 -cv-443-AKK-TMP 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER 

AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 13, 2014, Joseph Anthony Daniel, hereinafter referred to as the 

plaintiff, filed a pro se alleging that rights, privileges, or immunities afforded him 

under the Constitution or laws of the United States were abridged while he was an 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee at Etowah County 

Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama. (Id. at 4).1 On April 14, 2014, the 

plaintiff filed a “Motion to Submit[] Additional Evidentia[ry] Material in Support 

of, (sic) the Statement of Claim,” which the undersigned shall construe as a motion 

to amend the complaint. (Doc. 5). The court GRANTS the motion to amend the 

complaint. 

1 On September 22, 2014, the plaintiff notified the court he had been transferred to 

LaSalle Detention Center, in Trout, Louisiana, where he continues to be detained. (Doc. 13). 

1

 

FILED

 2015 Mar-02 PM 04:53

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 9
The plaintiff names the United States of America as the sole defendant, and 

seeks monetary damages for the “emotional and psychological” injury he has 

“suffered through his excessive and lengthy detention.” (Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 5 at 4). 

He also demands “equitable, including injunctive relief.” (Doc. 5 at 4). In 

accordance with the usual practices of this court and 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), the 

complaint was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a preliminary report 

and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 (1991).

I. Standard of Review

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, ' 804, 110 

Stat. 1321, 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A, requires the court to screen complaints filed by 

prisoners against officers or employees of governmental entities and to dismiss the 

complaint or any portion of the complaint it determines is frivolous, malicious, 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant immune from such relief. Where practicable, the court may sua 

sponte dismiss a prisoner=s complaint prior to service. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). 

A dismissal pursuant to ' 1915A (b)(1) for failure to state a claim is 

governed by the same standards as dismissals for failure to state a claim under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). To survive 

dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

2

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 9
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”@ 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). A 

plaintiff must assert “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation 

of the elements of a cause of action will not” suffice. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Because “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent 

standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys[,]” they are liberally construed. 

Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).

II. Factual Allegations

On June 26, 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals entered a final removal 

order against the plaintiff. (Doc. 1, “Ex. 7” at 42). He has been continually 

detained for over two years while awaiting deportation to Grenada. (Doc. 1 at 5-

7). Due to various improprieties by ICE, he has been denied release pending 

removal. (Id.). The plaintiff contends the reasons for his extended detention are

“unconstitutional” on due process grounds and “retaliation . . . for filing complaints 

against ICE officers.” (Id.). In his amended complaint, the plaintiff lists the “Fifth 

Amendment Due process/Equal Protection Clause,” and the Eighth Amendment’s 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as grounds for relief. (Doc. 5 at 

3). He also claims false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, which this court 

will construe as Fourth Amendment violations. (Id.). He demands monetary 

3

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 9
damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 5). 

III. Analysis

A. United States of America

Because the plaintiff is an alien demanding monetary damages and 

injunctive relief for constitutional violations in connection with his lengthy postremoval detention by ICE, this case clearly is being brought pursuant to Bivens v. 

Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 402 U.S. 388 

(1971). In Bivens, the United States Supreme Court “recognized for the first time 

an implied private action for damages against federal officers” for violations of 

certain constitutional rights. Corrections Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 

66 (2001). The plaintiff names the United States of America (e.g., the Federal 

Government) as the sole defendant. However, neither the United States of 

America nor ICE, as a federal agency, is subject to liability in a Bivens action. (Id.

at 70) (holding that Bivens does not “imply a damages action against a federal 

agency”); F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 474 (1994) (“Absent a waiver, 

sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”). 

As such, a Bivens claim may only be brought against “federal officers.” (Id.). 

The plaintiff has not named any federal officer(s) as defendant(s). 

Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, even if he were to identify proper Bivens

4

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 4 of 9
defendants, presumably ICE officers, he nonetheless fails to state any claims upon 

which relief may be granted. 

B. No available remedy

The sole source of all the plaintiff’s constitutional claims is the propriety of

his detention following entry of a final order of removal from the country. 

However, Bivens “is not an available remedy because any award in the plaintiff’s 

favor would ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of his conviction.” Skinner v. 

Switzer, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1292 (2011) (citing Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)). Admittedly, the plaintiff is not 

challenging a conviction. However, the Sixth Circuit has considered the question 

of whether Heck v. Humphrey precludes an alien detainee’s Bivens claim that

federal agents “falsified and failed to file immigration forms related to his pending 

immigration case, thereby causing him to be denied release on bond.” Cohen v. 

Clemens, 321 Fed. Appx. 739, 740 (10th Cir. 2009). In an opinion this court finds 

persuasive, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court “that Heck bar[red the 

plaintiff’s] claims for damages because success on those claims would necessarily 

imply the invalidity of [his] detention.” (Id. at 741). In doing so, the Court stated 

that 

the rule in Heck is not limited to claims challenging the validity of 

criminal convictions. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) 

5

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 5 of 9
(applying Heck to a § 1983 claim challenging procedures used to

deprive a prison inmate of good time credits); Huftile v. Miccio–

Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir.2005) (applying Heck to a 

§ 1983 claim challenging civil commitment under California's 

Sexually Violent Predators Act); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 102–

03 (5th Cir. 1996) (applying Heck to a § 1983 claim challenging the 

coercive nature of a pretrial detainee's confinement prior to giving a 

statement regarding pending charges). 

Cohen v. Clemens, 321 Fed. Appx. at 742. Cohen’s application of Heck is in line 

with the Supreme Court’s instruction that “absent prior invalidation” of the 

confinement period, a plaintiff’s Bivens “action is barred . . . no matter the relief 

sought (damages or equitable relief) . . . if success in that action would necessarily 

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 

544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). 

The plaintiff’s continued detention has not been invalidated. In fact, the 

majority of the time this Bivens action has been pending, the plaintiff was 

simultaneously pursuing a petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding the same 

matter in an effort to secure his release from detention. See Joseph Anthony Daniel 

v. Scott Hassell, et. al., 4:13-cv-767-SLB-SGC. He incorporates many of the same 

allegations underlying the habeas corpus case into the present action by reference 

and exhibits, and attempts to dispute the respondent’s positions in the habeas case

by making allegations and demands in this Bivens case. (Doc. 1 at 5-7; id., 

Exhibits 1 through 9). 

6

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 6 of 9
On June 19, 2014, Honorable Staci G. Cornelius, United States Magistrate 

Judge, entered a report and recommendation in the plaintiff’s (petitioner’s) habeas 

corpus case. See Joseph Anthony Daniel v. Scott Hassell, et. al., 4:13-cv-767-

SLB-SGC, Document 23). Judge Cornelius’s recommended legal and factual 

findings were in the respondent’s favor. (Id. at 2-5). She recommended the 

habeas corpus petition be denied and dismissed without prejudice, with leave “to 

re-file if ICE remains unable to remove him within ninety (90) days of a final order 

dismissing this case; this conclusion assumes Petitioner will continue to cooperate 

with ICE’s effort to remove him and refrain from initiating any new legal 

proceedings during the ninety (90) day period.” (Id. at 7). 

The plaintiff filed no objections to Judge Cornelius’s report and 

recommendation. On July 21, 2014, Honorable Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, 

United States District Judge, adopted and accepted Judges Cornelius’s report and 

recommendation, denied the plaintiff’s habeas petition, and dismissed the case 

without prejudice. (Id., docs. 24 and 25). 

On September 22, 2014, the plaintiff notified the court of his transfer to 

LaSalle Detention Center, in Trout, Louisiana, where he continues to be detained. 

(Doc. 13). See https://locator.ice.gov. On October 23, 2014, the plaintiff filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the 

7

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 7 of 9
Western District of Louisiana. See Joseph Anthony Daniel v. Eric Holder, et. al., 

1:14-cv-3100-DDD-JDK. See https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov. The case is currently 

pending. (Id.). 

The plaintiff’s continued post-removal detention has not been invalidated. 

Under Heck a cause of action for damages caused by his immigration detention 

would accrue only at such time as a court invalidates the detention, finding it 

violative of federal law. Because that has not occurred, he is barred from pursuing 

this Bivens action for monetary damages. Likewise, any request for declaratory or 

injunctive relief must be pursued in a habeas action, not a civil complaint.

IV. Recommendation

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the magistrate judge 

RECOMMENDS that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (doc. 5) be 

GRANTED, and this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

V. Notice Of Right To Object

 The plaintiff may file specific written objections to this report and 

recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date it is filed in the office of 

the Clerk. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations contained in this report and recommendation within fourteen 

(14) days from the date it is filed shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the 

8

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 8 of 9
factual findings on appeal. Written objections shall specifically identify the 

portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made 

and the specific basis for objection. Any objections to the failure of the magistrate 

judge to address any contention raised in the petition also must be included. 

Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be 

considered by a district judge. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle to 

make new allegations or present additional evidence. 

 A party may not appeal a magistrate judge’s recommendation directly to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made 

only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a district judge.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the foregoing to the plaintiff.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2015.

_______________________________

T. MICHAEL PUTNAM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 4:14-cv-00443-AKK-TMP Document 17 Filed 03/02/15 Page 9 of 9