Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 23 Honorable Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Defendants. 21 INTRODUCTION 22 24 25 26 27 FEDERAL AGENCY DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; MATTHEW E. HICKS, [UNKNOWN FIRST NAME] PETER, [UNKNOWN FIRST NAME] HERNANDEZ, and KATHLYN LAWRENCE, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers (in their individual capacities); and JOHN DOES 1-10 (in their individual capacities), 20 23 Case No. 2:17-cv-0218-RSM-JPD Daniel Ramirez Medina, The first seven unnumbered paragraphs, preceded by the header “INTRODUCTION,” consist of Plaintiff’s characterization of the lawsuit and related legal conclusions, accordingly, no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Federal Agency Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. Further, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -0- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 2 of 23 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 1. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 3 2. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. Further, 4 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Bivens claims against named and unnamed government 5 officials in their individual capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. 6 3. This paragraph consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. 7 4. This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of the procedural history of this 8 matter, which is a matter of public record, and to which no response is required. To the 9 extent a response is required, admit. 10 11 PARTIES 5. Defendants admit Plaintiff’s age, but lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 12 remainder of the first sentence. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 13 the facts alleged in this paragraph regarding Plaintiff’s arrival in the United States. 14 Defendants admit that Plaintiff was twice granted DACA and associated employment 15 authorization. Defendants admit that Mr. Ramirez was detained in the Northwest 16 Detention Center for more than six weeks, but denies that it was without a warrant or 17 probable cause. The remainder of this paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of 18 the lawsuit and legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that the 19 Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 20 6. Admit. 21 7. Admit. 22 8. Admit. 23 9. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 24 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 25 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny. 26 10. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 27 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 28 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny. Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -1- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 3 of 23 1 11. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 2 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 3 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny. 4 12. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 5 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 6 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny. 7 13. Admit. 8 14. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 9 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 10 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny. 11 STATEMENT OF FACTS 12 15. Defendants admit that former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a 13 memorandum on June 15, 2012, establishing the DACA policy, and admit that under that 14 memorandum, certain individuals who were brought to the United States as children and 15 meet certain threshold criteria could request deferred action for a period of two years 16 subject to renewal. Defendants further admit that DACA requestors were required to 17 provide certain personal information to the government, submit to a background check, 18 and pay a fee. Defendants deny all other allegations and characterization in this 19 paragraph. 20 16. No response is required with regard to this paragraph because consists of Plaintiff’s 21 characterization of DACA and because the language of the referenced 2012 DACA 22 Memorandum speaks for itself. 23 17. Defendants admit the first sentence of this paragraph. No response is required with regard 24 to the remaining sentence of this paragraph because the language of the quoted 2012 25 DACA Memorandum speaks for itself. 26 27 18. No response is required with regard to this paragraph because the language of the referenced 2012 DACA Memorandum speaks for itself. 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -2- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 4 of 23 1 19. 2 3 No response is required with regard to this paragraph because the language of the referenced USCIA DACA FAQ speaks for itself. 20. Admit the first sentence of this paragraph. No response is required with regard to the 4 second sentence of this paragraph because the language of the quoted and referenced 5 letter speaks for itself. 6 21. No response is required with regard to this paragraph because the language of the 7 referenced memo speaks for itself. The remainder of the paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ 8 characterization of the lawsuit and, accordingly, no response is required. To the extent 9 that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in the remainder of 10 11 this paragraph. 22. No response is required to this paragraph because the language referenced in the USCIS 12 DACA FAQs and Form I-821D instructions speaks for themselves. To the extent a 13 response is required, Defendants admit that DACA requestors must submit the 14 documentation required in the Form I-821 Instructions and Form I-765 Instructions and 15 pay the associated fees, or obtain fee exemptions, but aver that individuals requesting 16 DACA are not applicants, but requestors. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of 17 this paragraph. 18 23. Admit the first sentence of this paragraph. No response is required to the second and third 19 sentences of this paragraph because the quoted language and referenced USCIS DACA 20 FAQs speak for themselves. 21 24. Deny the first sentence of this paragraph, and aver that quoted language from the USCIS 22 DACA FAQ speaks for itself. No response is required to the second sentence of this 23 paragraph because the quoted language from the USCIS letter speaks for itself. Admit the 24 third sentence of this paragraph, but aver that the language of the referenced USCIS letter 25 speaks for itself. 26 27 25. Deny, and aver that the language of the quoted and referenced USCIS letter speaks for itself. 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -3- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 5 of 23 1 26. Deny the first sentence of this paragraph and aver that the quoted and referenced 2 language of the DACA SOP speaks for itself. No response is required to the second 3 sentence of this paragraph because the quoted language of the DACA SOP and Appendix 4 speaks for itself. 5 27. 6 7 Deny, and aver that the referenced language in the USCIS DACA FAQs, 2012 DACA memorandum, and case cite speak for themselves. 28. Deny the first sentence of this paragraph, but aver that DACA recipients are eligible for 8 employment authorization provided they establish economic necessity for employment. 9 No response is required to the second sentence of this paragraph because the quoted 10 11 language from the USCIS DACA FAQs speaks for itself. 29. Admit the first sentence of this paragraph. No response is required to the second and third 12 sentences of this paragraph because the referenced statutory provisions and case cite 13 speak for themselves. 14 30. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 15 paragraph and further note that the referenced language of the amicus brief filed in this 16 matter speaks for itself. 17 31. No response is required to the allegations of this paragraph because the quoted language 18 of the referenced letter speaks for itself, but deny that the non-accrual of unlawful 19 presence is an immigration benefit. Defendants are also without sufficient information to 20 admit or deny Plaintiff’s allegation regarding “hundreds of thousands of Dreamers.” 21 32. Deny the first sentence of this paragraph. Admit the second sentence of this paragraph, 22 but aver that the referenced statutory provision and USCIS DACA FAQs speaks for 23 themselves. 24 33. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of the first 25 sentence of this paragraph. No response is required to the second sentence of this 26 paragraph to the extent the language of the quoted and referenced letter speaks for itself, 27 however Defendants deny Plaintiff’s characterizations of that letter. 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -4- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 6 of 23 1 34. Defendants deny the allegation of the first sentence of this paragraph. Defendants deny 2 the second sentence of this paragraph and aver that the quoted and referenced language of 3 the DACA Approval Notice speaks for itself. 4 35. Defendants deny the first sentence of this paragraph and aver that the language of the 5 referenced DACA SOP speaks for itself. Defendants deny the second sentence of this 6 paragraph, object to Plaintiff’s mischaracterization of the cited authority, and aver that 7 the cited authority speaks for itself and requires no response. 8 36. 9 Defendants deny the first sentence of this paragraph. No response is required to the remainder of this paragraph because the referenced letter speaks for itself. 10 37. No response is required to this paragraph because the quoted language speaks for itself. 11 38. No response is required to this paragraph because the quoted language speaks for itself. 12 39. No response is required to this paragraph because the quoted language speaks for itself. 13 40. No response is required to this paragraph because the quoted language speaks for itself. 14 41. Admit that Defendant USCIS received a request for DACA and work authorization in 15 late 2013 from Plaintiff. Defendants deny that Plaintiff provided the government with his 16 birth certificate with his 2013 DACA request, but admit the remainder of the second 17 sentence and the fourth sentence. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit 18 or deny the third sentence of this paragraph. 19 42. Defendants admit the first two sentences of this paragraph, but deny that Plaintiff’s 20 characterization that he was subjected to “rigorous vetting.” No response is required to 21 the remainder of this paragraph because the quoted and referenced DACA Approval 22 Notice language speaks for itself. 23 43. Deny. 24 44. Defendants admit the first sentence of this paragraph, admit the ICE agents entered the 25 apartment, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the 26 allegations. 27 28 45. Defendants deny that Mr. Ramirez provided ICE agents his name and birthdate, and admit the remaining allegations of this paragraph. Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -5- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 7 of 23 1 46. Defendants deny the first two sentences of this paragraph and admit the third sentence. 2 47. Defendants admit that ICE agents did not have an arrest warrant for Plaintiff, but deny 3 that they did not have any reason to believe that he had committed a crime or was not 4 authorized to be in the United States. Defendants deny allegations in the second sentence 5 of this paragraph. The Defendants admit that Mr. Ramirez was taken into custody and 6 transported to an ICE holding facility in Tukwila, Washington, but deny the remaining 7 allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph. Defendants deny the fourth sentence of 8 this paragraph. 9 48. Defendants admit that ICE agents confiscated Plaintiff’s work permit. Defendants lack 10 sufficient knowledge to admit or deny that the permit was marked with a “C33” 11 designation, but lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny that such designation clearly 12 identifies Plaintiff as a DACA recipient with work authorization pursuant to DACA. 13 49. Defendants admit that ICE agents fingerprinted Plaintiff and used this information to 14 access his records, that the fingerprint check did not reveal a criminal history, and that the 15 records check indicated he had been granted DACA and had an Employment 16 Authorization Document valid until May 5, 2018. Defendants deny that DACA is a type 17 of immigration “status” and that a records check revealed the number times Plaintiff had 18 received DACA. 19 50. 20 21 Defendants admit the first sentence, deny the second sentence, and aver that the referenced Form I-213 speaks for itself. 51. Defendants deny that ICE agents began to interrogate Plaintiff. Defendants lack 22 sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the number of times ICE agents asked Plaintiff 23 whether he was in a gang. Defendants admit that Plaintiff stated that he knew students 24 who attended middle school and high school with him who were in gangs. Defendants 25 admit that Plaintiff stated that he was not in a gang, and admit that Plaintiff stated that he 26 had never been in a gang. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 27 28 52. Defendants deny that ICE agents interrogated Plaintiff about tattoo on his arm. Defendants admit to the contents of the tattoo as “La Paz – BCS” and a nautical star. Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -6- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 8 of 23 1 Defendants admit that Plaintiff generally explained that “La Paz” is Mr. Ramirez’s 2 birthplace, and “BCS” stands for Baja California Sur, the region in which La Paz is 3 located. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations 4 of this paragraph. 5 53. Defendants deny ICE the first and second sentences. Defendants lack sufficient 6 knowledge to admit or deny whether Plaintiff repeatedly told ICE agents that the tattoo is 7 a gang tattoo, but aver that Plaintiff stated that his tattoo was not a gang tattoo at least 8 once. Defendants also deny that ICE agents refused to believe Plaintiff. 9 54. Defendants admit to asking if there were any gangs with which he would like to avoid 10 being placed with for his safety. Defendants admit that Plaintiff stated that he had no 11 gang affiliation and would not have a problem being placed with anyone. Defendants lack 12 sufficient knowledge to admit or deny whether Plaintiff stated that he preferred the Paisas 13 and Plaintiff’s understanding of the word of “Paisas” or what he was attempting to 14 communicate. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny this allegation. 15 Defendants deny that Plaintiff has no criminal history and lack sufficient knowledge to 16 admit or deny whether Plaintiff has any connection or affiliation to the Paizas gang. 17 55. Admit. 18 56. No response is required to this paragraph because the referenced EPA report speaks for 19 20 itself. 57. No response to this allegation is required because the content of the referenced articles 21 speak for themselves. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the 22 allegations in this paragraph. 23 58. Defendants admit that Plaintiff spent more than six weeks at the Northwest Detention 24 Center and that he spent his twenty-fourth birthday in detention. Defendants lack 25 sufficient knowledge to admit or deny whether Plaintiff was able to see or speak to his 26 son for the duration of his detention. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or 27 deny what Plaintiff experienced, and deny that he was informed by staff at the Northwest 28 Detention Center that this was likely due to depression. Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -7- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 9 of 23 1 59. Defendants admit the classification given to Plaintiff, but deny the classification of other 2 detainees in the housing unit. Defendant admit the second sentence of this paragraph. 3 Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of the third 4 and fourth sentences of this paragraph. 5 60. 6 7 briefing speaks for itself. 61. 8 9 Admit, but aver that the language of the referenced Notice to Appear and Defendants’ Admit, but aver that the language of the referenced and quoted Notice of Action speaks for itself. 62. 10 Defendants deny the first sentence of this paragraph, but admit the second sentence of this paragraph. 11 63. Deny. 12 64. Deny. 13 65. Defendants admit the first sentence of this paragraph. Defendants admit that the quoted 14 statement in the first sentence contracts the Form I-213, state that no response is required 15 to the legal conclusion that the statement was a false allegation, and aver that no response 16 is required to the remainder of this paragraph because the referenced statements and 17 forms speak for themselves. 18 66. Deny. 19 67. Deny. 20 68. Defendants admit that on February 15, 2017, DHS issued a press release stating that, “On 21 February 10, Daniel Ramirez-Medina, a gang member, was encountered at a residence in 22 Des Moines, Washington, during an operation targeting a prior-deported felon.” 23 69. No response is required to the allegations in this paragraph because Defendants 24 referenced court filings and statements in immigration court speak for themselves. To the 25 extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in first and final sentences 26 of this paragraph. 27 28 70. Defendants deny the first two sentences of this paragraph, and deny that there is evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff has successfully passed three separate DHS background Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -8- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 10 of 23 1 checks. No response is required to the final sentence of this paragraph because the 2 referenced declarations speak for themselves. 3 71. Defendants deny the first sentence of this paragraph, and aver that no response is required 4 to the remaining allegations because the quoted and referenced declarations speak for 5 themselves, although Defendants deny the conclusions of those declarations. 6 72. Defendants deny the first and third sentences of this paragraph. Defendants admit that 7 ICE has access to numerous law enforcement and public safety databases, but denies 8 access to all such databases. 9 73. Deny. 10 74. Defendants admit the first sentence of this paragraph but deny the remaining allegations. 11 75. Defendants deny the first sentence of this paragraph and are without sufficient 12 13 information to admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph. 76. 14 15 paragraph. 77. 16 17 Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. 78. 18 Defendants deny the first sentence of this paragraph but admit the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 19 79. Deny. 20 80. Defendants admit the first sentence of this paragraph, but aver the at the immigration 21 judge’s bond order speaks for itself. Defendants deny the second sentence of this 22 paragraph. 23 81. 24 25 Admit the first sentence of this paragraph. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the second sentence of this paragraph. 82. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of the first 26 and third sentences of this paragraph. Defendants admit that Plaintiff no longer has 27 DACA or work authorization and that Defendants confiscated Plaintiff’s Washington 28 State identification card following his arrest, but are without sufficient information to Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -9- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 11 of 23 1 admit or deny that Defendants have refused to return such identification card. To the 2 extent a response is required, Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this 3 paragraph. 4 83. 5 6 Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. 84. 7 Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. 8 CAUSES OF ACTION 9 COUNT ONE 10 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT – ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTION 11 85. 12 13 paragraphs as stated therein. 86. 14 15 Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding This paragraph contains legal conclusions and Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims, to which no response is necessary. 87. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and statements of law to which no response is 16 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 17 allegations in this paragraph. 18 88. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 19 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 20 allegations in this paragraph. 21 89. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 22 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 23 allegations in this paragraph. 24 90. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 25 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 26 allegations in this paragraph. 27 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -10- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 12 of 23 1 91. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the 2 extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this 3 paragraph. 4 COUNT TWO 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT – UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION 6 92. 7 8 paragraphs as stated therein. 93. 9 10 Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding This paragraph contains legal conclusions and Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims, to which no response is necessary. 94. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and statements of law to which no response is 11 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 12 allegations in this paragraph. 13 95. 14 15 that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 96. 16 17 This paragraph contains legal citations to which no response is necessary. To the extent This paragraph contains legal citations to which no response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 97. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 18 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 19 allegations in this paragraph. 20 98. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 21 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 22 allegations in this paragraph. 23 99. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 24 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 25 allegations in this paragraph. 26 100. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 27 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 28 allegations in this paragraph. Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -11- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 13 of 23 1 101. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 2 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 3 allegations in this paragraph. 4 102. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 5 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 6 allegations in this paragraph. 7 103. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 8 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 9 allegations in this paragraph. 10 104. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and legal citations to which no response is 11 necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the 12 allegations in this paragraph. 13 105. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the 14 extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this 15 paragraph. 16 COUNT THREE 17 BIVENS CLAIM: FOURTH AMENDMENT – UNLAWFUL SEIZURE 18 106. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 19 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 20 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants repeat and 21 incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding paragraphs as stated 22 therein. 23 107. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 24 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 25 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions and 26 Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims, to which no response is necessary. 27 28 108. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -12- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 14 of 23 1 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions and legal 2 citations to which no response is necessary. 3 109. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 4 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 5 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions and 6 Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims, to which no response is necessary. To the extent 7 that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 8 110. 9 No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 10 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions and 11 Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims, to which no response is necessary. To the extent 12 that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 13 111. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 14 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 15 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants 16 deny the allegations in this paragraph. 17 COUNT FOUR 18 BIVENS CLAIM: FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 19 112. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 20 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 21 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants repeat and 22 incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding paragraphs as stated 23 therein. 24 113. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 25 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 26 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, legal 27 citations, and Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims, to which no response is necessary. 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -13- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 15 of 23 1 114. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 2 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 3 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 4 response is necessary. 5 115. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 6 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 7 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 8 response is necessary. 9 116. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 10 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 11 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions and legal 12 citations, to which no response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a 13 response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 14 117. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 15 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 16 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 17 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 18 the allegations in this paragraph. 19 118. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 20 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 21 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants are without 22 sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. To the extent 23 that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 24 COUNT FIVE 25 BIVENS CLAIM: FIFTH AMENDMENT – SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 26 119. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 27 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 28 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants repeat and Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -14- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 16 of 23 1 incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding paragraphs as stated 2 therein. 3 120. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 4 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 5 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, legal 6 citations, and Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims, to which no response is necessary. 7 121. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 8 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 9 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 10 11 response is necessary. 122. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 12 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 13 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 14 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 15 the allegations in this paragraph. 16 123. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 17 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 18 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions and 19 citations, to which no response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a 20 response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 21 124. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 22 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 23 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains characterizations of his claims, 24 legal conclusions, and citations to which no response is necessary. To the extent a 25 response is required, Defendants deny. To the extent that the Court requires a response, 26 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 27 28 125. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -15- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 17 of 23 1 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 2 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 3 the allegations in this paragraph. 4 126. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 5 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 6 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 7 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 8 the allegations in this paragraph. 9 127. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 10 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 11 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants are without 12 sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. To the extent 13 that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 14 COUNT SIX 15 BIVENS CLAIM: FIFTH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION 16 128. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 17 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 18 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants repeat and 19 incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding paragraphs as stated 20 therein. 21 129. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 22 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 23 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 24 response is necessary. 25 130. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 26 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 27 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 28 response is necessary. Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -16- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 18 of 23 1 131. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 2 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 3 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 4 response is necessary. 5 132. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 6 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 7 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 8 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 9 the allegations in this paragraph. 10 133. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 11 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 12 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 13 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 14 the allegations in this paragraph. 15 134. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 16 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 17 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 18 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 19 the allegations in this paragraph. 20 135. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 21 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 22 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants are without 23 sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. To the extent 24 that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 25 COUNT SEVEN 26 BIVENS CLAIM: FIFTH AMENDMENT – DEFAMATION 27 28 136. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -17- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 19 of 23 1 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent a response is required, Defendants repeat and 2 incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding paragraphs as stated 3 therein. 4 137. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 5 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 6 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 7 response is necessary. 8 138. 9 No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 10 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 11 response is necessary. 12 139. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 13 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 14 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal citations, to which no 15 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 16 the allegations in this paragraph. 17 140. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 18 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 19 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 20 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 21 the allegations in this paragraph. 22 141. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 23 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 24 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 25 response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant deny the 26 allegations of this paragraph. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants 27 deny the allegations in this paragraph. 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -18- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 20 of 23 1 142. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 2 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 3 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 4 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 5 the allegations in this paragraph. 6 143. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 7 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 8 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 9 response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant deny the 10 allegations of this paragraph. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants 11 deny the allegations in this paragraph. 12 144. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 13 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 14 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 15 response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant deny the 16 allegations of this paragraph. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants 17 deny the allegations in this paragraph. 18 145. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 19 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 20 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 21 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 22 the allegations in this paragraph. 23 146. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 24 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 25 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. This paragraph also contains legal conclusions, to which no 26 response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny 27 the allegations in this paragraph. 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -19- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 21 of 23 1 147. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 2 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 3 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants 4 deny the allegations in this paragraph. 5 COUNT EIGHT 6 DECLARATORY RELIEF 7 148. 8 9 Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and every response to the preceding paragraphs as stated therein. 149. This paragraph contains the characterization of his claims, legal conclusions, and legal 10 citations, to which no response is necessary. To the extent that the Court requires a 11 response, Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 12 150. This paragraph contains legal conclusions, to which no response is necessary. To the 13 extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in this 14 paragraph. 15 16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 151. No response to this paragraph is necessary because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 17 Bivens claims against named and unnamed government officials in their individual 18 capacities. See Dkt. No. 112. To the extent that the Court requires a response, Defendants 19 deny the allegations in this paragraph. 20 21 REQUEST FOR RELIEF Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. 22 23 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -20- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 22 of 23 1 DATED: December 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted, CHAD A. READLER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 2 3 WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director 4 5 /s/ Jeffrey S. Robins JEFFREY S. ROBINS Assistant Director U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Phone: (202) 616-1246 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: jeffrey.robins@usdoj.gov 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Attorneys for the Federal Agency Defendants 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -21- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 119 Filed 12/06/17 Page 23 of 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 6, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Defendants’ Answer with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document should automatically be served on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of 5 6 Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF 7 s/ Jeffrey S. Robins JEFFREY S. ROBINS Assistant Director U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants’ Answer Case No. 2:17-CV-218-RSM-JPD -22- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 598-2446