Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321205705/Unus-v-Kane-565-F-3d-103-4th-Cir-2009
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:10:30+00:00

Document:
Tameika Lovell v. United States of America, et al.
Bivens Case -- possibly collect damages from a bad federal employee?
DAVID KANE, Special Agent, U.S.
Special Agent, IRS; STASIA A.
Special Agent, IRS; KENNETH W.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part by published opinion.
allegedly unlawful search of their northern Virginia home.
a postal inspector (Elmer Mooring, Sr.).
and affirm the balance of the judgment.
present during the search and is not a plaintiff in these proceedings.
facts are spelled out in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
financial support of international terrorism ("Green Quest").
terrorist-related activities in the United States. Id. at 2, 6.
they were in fact merely "paper" organizations of an international terrorist network. Id. at 7.
and the Third Amended Complaint at J.A. 1686-705.
In her appellate brief, Katz acknowledges that she is the author of Terrorist Hunter. See Br. of Appellee Katz 8.
performed for the United States government.
their offices to be located at 555 Grove Street, alone.
omitted). Labeling these organizations as the "Safa Charities,"
"the pattern of grants and allocations made does not demonstrate the Safa Charities are operating for an exempt purpose,"
North America). Affidavit 38. Because of Dr. Unuss positions in these organizations, Agent Kane believed that Dr.
financial] records at his house." Id. at 96-97 (emphasis omitted). Based on such information, Kane swore there was "probable cause to believe that evidence of [federal law] violations"
Group financial records. Id. at 98.
Unus residence on evidence of money laundering, tax evasion, and material support of terrorism.
about ten feet of it.
officers broke through the front door with a battering ram.
a copy of the Warrant to Aysha.
search warrant to search the Plaintiffs home."
Quest investigation did not result in any arrests or indictments.
Unknown Named Fed. Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
federal officers for violations of Fourth Amendment).
deprive Plaintiffs of" equal protection of the law.
four hours. Initial Complaint 11-12.
Unus "by directly restraining them of their physical liberty without adequate legal justification."
once again pleading the claims made in the Initial Complaint.
cause and did for this particular search." Id. at 1150.
on the claims against the Unknown Named Federal Agents.
a motion filed by Katz, that the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
The Reconsideration Order is found at J.A. 1185-89.
with prejudice." Reconsideration Order 5 n.5.
The Fee Order is found at J.A. 1422-27.
finding that no constitutional violation occurred." Id. at 3.
(quoting Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1080 (4th Cir.
aware before they filed the [First] Amended Complaint." Id.
appeal, the plaintiffs do not challenge the award of costs to Katz.
Named Federal Agents" with the identities of the eleven federal agents who had conducted the search of the Unus residence (the "federal agent defendants"). See supra note 1.
search." Second Amended Complaint 17.
imprison the plaintiffs. Second Amended Complaint 21.
party defendant." 28 U.S.C. 2679(d)(1).
against the United States, the FTCA requires that the claim be "first presented . . . to the appropriate Federal agency" and that it be "finally denied"
by the agency. 28 U.S.C. 2675(a).
aiding-and-abetting claim or the conspiracy claim could proceed.
dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
entry onto Plaintiffs property." Third Amended Complaint 19.
"relation back" concerning pleadings), which had been rendered on July 25, 2007. In response, the court ordered additional briefing on the relation-back issue.
federal agent defendants as moot.
2007, the plaintiffs timely noted this appeal. We possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
where there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.
F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003).
facts, which, if proven to be true, would entitle them to relief.
F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
de novo. See Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir.
attorneys fee award may appropriately be made. See Bass v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 766 (4th Cir.
F.3d 194, 196 (4th Cir. 1998).
immunity on the substantive Bivens claim against him.
Fourth, the plaintiffs assert that the court erroneously dismissed the Bivens conspiracy and 1985 claims against Katz.
the assault-and-battery and false imprisonment claims.
first identify the legal principles governing their adjudication.
Katz; or the award of costs to Katz.
United States as the defendant on the FTCA claims.
an assault or battery claim. See id. Importantly, Virginia recognizes that police officers are legally justified in using reasonable force to execute their lawful duties. See, e.g., Pike v.
agent defendants acted reasonably under Virginia law.
Constitution and Article I, 10 of the Constitution of Virginia." Lewis v. Commonwealth, 493 S.E.2d 397, 399 (Va. Ct.
amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."
when conducting his duties is of paramount importance."
"pounded" on the door, identified himself as the "police,"
run "down the hallway to the back of the house." Id. at 2948.
the residence. Cf. Mensh v. Dyer, 956 F.2d 36, 40 (4th Cir.
1992) (recognizing that forced entry was justified after officers heard "the sound of running feet").
the three Fairfax County police officers were in uniform.
join her mother, and call 911.
room for several hours while the Warrant was executed.
weapons and a wanted gang member. See 544 U.S. at 96.
though the plaintiff was not herself a target of the search. Id.
contraband, whereas the Warrant focused solely on financial documents.
reasonableness of detention of occupants during search for records), abrogated on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
existed . . . and she was an occupant. . . .").
have "outweigh[ed] the marginal intrusion" on the plaintiffs.
the occupants interests in not being restrained in handcuffs.
"acted a certain way at the time of entry." J.A. 4694.
different decision [to remove the handcuffs]." Id.
awarded summary judgment to the United States.
were detained during the execution of the Warrant.
Bivens subclaims against the federal agent defendants are statutorily barred, and we affirm the dismissals of these claims.
gave rise to the claim.
conduct and allege distinct injuries from the FTCA claims.
actions, transactions, or occurrences" as the Bivens claim.
Arevalo v. Woods, 811 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1987) (same).
the text of the statute.
agent defendants through Bivens as well as under the FTCA.
federal agent defendants are thus barred.
and we must address those claims separately.
order to mask the ultimate destination of particular funds.
denied Kanes search warrant application. Id.
governing the circumstances she confronted." Brosseau v.
alleged that Kane violated the Constitution. See Ridpath v. Bd.
of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 307 (4th Cir.
Amendment rights in two ways: by using the "Safa Group"
label and by alleging that Safa Group organizations had transferred money outside the United States.
determining whether the affiant made a false statement "deliberately" or with "reckless disregard for the truth." Miller v.
Prince Georges County, Md., 475 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.
clearly established right of which a reasonable officer should have known.
of the case at hand." Id.
156; Miller, 475 F.3d at 629.
was proper," thus concluding that Kane was "absolutely entitled to qualified immunity." Id.
the web of companies and charities . . . as the Safa Group."
entity gifted funds to trust on Isle of Man).
(2006) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found in"
immunity on the substantive Bivens claim.
defendants in connection with the conspiracy.
however, we need not address whether such a cause of action is cognizable.
Egervary v. Young, 366 F.3d 238, 246 (3d Cir. 2004) (recognizing that "tort law causation" governs Bivens analysis).
analysis of the substantive Bivens claim against Agent Kane.
the [First] Amended Complaint." Id. at 5.
rights proceedings is entitled to recover attorneys fees.
is requested to make such an award to a prevailing defendant.
(quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S.
Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421-22; see also Sensations, Inc.
a frivolous claim, it chills nothing that is worth encouraging." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.
against Katz were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
their insufficient allegations of material misrepresentations."
January 11, 2005, hearing." Id. at 4-5.
"extreme sanction" of awarding such fees is thus unwarranted.
that the courts three bases for its fee award are insufficient.
Aysha nor Hanaa Unus was a party to that litigation.
Safa Group entities had transferred money internationally.
a finding to the contrary as a basis for the fee award.
556 F.3d 177, 210 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that res judicata requires, inter alia, claims by same parties or privies).
warrants, despite Katz having been advised by "one or more"
serious and careful judicial consideration. Cf. Hughes v.
plaintiffs to particularize the claims made in the Initial Complaint.
including the Warrant to search the Unus residence, despite his initial reticence. See Terrorist Hunter 322-23.
claim that proved to be factually baseless." Id. at 1081.
court was within its discretion to award fees under 1988.
could discourage all but the most airtight claims." Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 422; see also LeBlanc-Sternberg v.
attorneys fee award made to Katz.
of Rita Katz. I therefore respectfully dissent from Part III.E.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.