Opinion ID: 18489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: FTCA and Bivens Claims: Statute of Limitations

Text: 45 Appellants argue that the district court erred in finding that their FTCA causes of action and Bivens claims were barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the district court's ruling as to Brown and Satterwhite. Although we conclude that the district court erred in holding that Hodgson's Bivens claims are time barred, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal of those claims on the basis of qualified immunity.
46 The FTCA applies a two-year statute of limitations from the accrual date of the cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). A cause of action accrues, under federal law, when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury whichis the basis of the action. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620-21 (5th Cir. 1994). The plaintiff's knowledge of the injury depends on two elements: (1) the existence of the injury; and (2) the connection between the injury and the defendant's actions. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995). 47 After carefully reviewing the Appellants' Second Amended Complaint, we conclude that their claims for assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy are barred by the statute of limitations. They rest on allegations of events that occurred in August and September 1993. Appellants presented their claims on January 8, 1996 and January 10, 1996. Because the claims were presented more than two-years after the events giving rise to the complaint, the district court was correct in dismissing them.
48 We also hold that Brown and Satterwhite's Bivens claims for due process and Fifth Amendment violations are barred by the statute of limitations. Under Bivens, a person may sue a federal agent for money damages when the federal agent has allegedly violated that person's constitutional rights. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action is controlled by the applicable state statute of limitations. See Alford v. United States, 693 F.2d 498, 499 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). This Court, applying Texas law, has held that the statute of limitations period on a Bivens claim is two years. See Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 987 (5th Cir. 1998). Brown became aware that he had been injured by the Defendants' alleged violation of his constitutional rights on August 10, 1993, when the FBI agents revealed to him that he had been expending his time and energy furthering the deceptions of Operation Lightning Strike, rather than his own business interests. Likewise, the pleadings allege that the FBI revealed the undercover scheme to Plaintiff Satterwhite on August 20, 1993. However, we find nothing in the record that establishes when Plaintiff Hodgson was made privy to this information. We therefore affirm the district court's holding that Brown and Satterwhite's Bivens claims are barred by Texas' two-year statute of limitations, but find that we are unable to affirm the district court's dismissal of Hodgson's Bivens claims on statute of limitations grounds.
49 Although neither the pleadings, the district court's order nor the briefs develop the analysis, it is obvious that defendants have a qualified immunity defense to the Bivens claims. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, we affirm the dismissal of Hodgson's Bivens claims on that alternative ground. See Gulf Island, IV, 940 F.2d at 952. 50 Governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct [does] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 166 (1992). Hodgson's Bivens claims are bottomed on defendants' alleged violations of his constitutional due process rights. 5 51 No court has addressed the particular issue presented by this case: the specific limits on federal agents' authority in undercover operations. The district court found no limits on the power of federal agents operating under cover, reasoning that if Appellants are allowed to pursue state law causes of action it would effectivelystop federal undercover operations because, by their very nature [they] seek to invade the privacy of those who violate the law. The district court went on to hold, without citation to authority, that [t]he constitutional structure of our federal system does not permit private litigants to police federal law enforcement activities by asserting state law claims against federal law enforcement agencies or their agents. The district court erred: it asked the wrong question and reached the wrong conclusion. 52 The district court should have asked whether it was constitutionally permissible for federal agents to inflict damages on innocent non-targets 6 during an undercover operation and refuse them compensation. Because the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee against conscience-shocking injury imposes clear limits on law enforcement conduct, we conclude that it was neither necessary nor proper for the defendants in this case to destroy the lives and businesses of innocent non-targets in the name of law enforcement. 53 The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The Due Process Clause was intended to prevent government officials from abusing their power or employing it as an instrument of oppression. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 126 (1992). The cognizable level of executive abuse of power is that which shocks the conscience, violates the decencies of civilized conduct or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 209-210 (1952). Obviously, this guarantee of due process protects citizens against deliberate harm from government officials. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). Allegations of lesser culpability have been held adequate to state a claim in some circumstances. For example, deliberate indifference suffices to impose due process liability when government actors fail to provide adequate care for pretrial detainees with serious medical needs. See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). However, harm inflicted due to government actors' simple negligence is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process. See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328. 54 The Supreme Court recently provided a road map for navigating mid-level-culpability due process claims. In County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998), parents of a motorcycle passenger killed in a high-speed police chase brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the officer and governmental agencies involved, alleging deprivation of their decedent's substantive due process right to life. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1712. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that proof of deliberate indifference by the officer would be sufficient to establish a due process violation. Id. at 1711. A police officer deciding whether to give chase must balance on one hand the need to stop a suspect and show that flight from the law is no way to freedom, and, on the other, the high-speed threat to everyone within stopping range, be they suspects, their passengers, other drivers or bystanders. Id. at 1720. Analogizing the circumstances of a police chase to the situation of officers called on to quell a prison riot, the Supreme Court held that '[a] deliberate indifference standard does not adequately capture the importance of such competing obligations, or convey the appropriate hesitancy to critiquein hindsight decisions necessarily made in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.' Id. at 1720, quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986). The court went on to distinguish situations where mid-level fault was sufficient to impose liability. For example, liability for deliberate indifference to inmate welfare rests upon the luxury enjoyed by prison officials of having time to make unhurried judgments, upon the chance for repeated reflection, largely uncomplicated by the pulls of competing obligations. See Lewis, 118 S. Ct. at 1720. When such extended opportunities to do better are teamed with protracted failure even to care, indifference is truly shocking. But when unforeseen circumstances demand an officer's instant judgment, even precipitate recklessness fails to inch close enough to harmful purpose to spark the shock that implicates 'the large concerns of the governors and the governed.' Id., quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. at 332. 55 Applying the Lewis analysis to the FBI's alleged activity in this case, we conclude that the FBI made decisions which harmed the Plaintiffs after ample opportunity for cool reflection. In fact, they invested almost two years and thousands of man hours in developing the sting operation. Thus, the due process clause protects the Plaintiffs from any harm that arose from the officers' deliberate indifference. The facts, as pleaded, establish at least that level of federal agent culpability as Operation Lightning Strike evolved into a disastrous boondoggle. We therefore hold that Hodgson's allegations that federal agents inflicted damages on him, an innocent non-target, during this particular undercover operation and refused him compensation states a claim under Bivens. 56 However, because we address today for the first time the parameters of due process protections afforded innocent third parties injured by law enforcement sting operations run amok, and because the Supreme Court's language that drives our analysis appeared in a case decided in 1998, we cannot say that the due process rights claimed by Hodgson were clearly established during 1992-94. See Lewis, 523 U.S. 833. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Hodgson's Bivens claims on the alternative basis of qualified immunity.