Alfredo Molina-Garcia v. Zachary Fardon


NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted March 5, 2019* Decided March 5, 2019 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 18‐2322 ALFREDO MOLINA‐GARCIA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 18 C 1394 ZACHARY T. FARDON and CHRISTOPHER J. STETLER, Charles R. Norgle, Defendants‐Appellees. Judge. O R D E R Alfredo Molina‐Garcia appeals the dismissal of his suit alleging that two prosecutors maliciously prosecuted and then falsely imprisoned him for five years. Because the district court correctly dismissed the suit as untimely, we affirm. * The defendants were not served in the district court and are not participating in this appeal in their individual capacities. The United States filed a brief for the defendants in their official capacities only. We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid us. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 18‐2322 Page 2 In 2010, Molina‐Garcia was arrested and detained on drug‐trafficking charges. Molina‐Garcia says that, during his detention, he was denied medical care for a “prostate problem” until 2013, when he underwent an unsuccessful surgery. In December 2015—after Molina‐Garcia had been detained for five years—the government moved to dismiss the charges against him. The following month, he was transferred from the federal jail to an immigration detention center. He was released from immigration custody in August 2016. In February 2018, Molina‐Garcia sued Zachary Fardon (the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois) and Christopher Stetler (an Assistant U.S. Attorney) in their individual and official capacities, bringing claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and medical malpractice. The district court—noting that Molina‐Garcia had not invoked the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674, or named the United States as a party defendant—construed the complaint as a Bivens action against the officers in their individual capacities only. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Because Molina‐Garcia filed suit more than two years after his release from custody on the dismissed charges, the court ordered him to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as time‐barred. See Delgado‐Brunet v. Clark, 93 F.3d 339, 342 (7th Cir. 1996) (statute of limitations for Bivens actions in Illinois is two years). Molina‐Garcia responded that he was not released from immigration custody until August 2016; he feared that filing suit earlier would adversely affect his application for a work permit; and he lacked resources and knowledge of the law. Finding those explanations insufficient to merit equitable tolling, the court dismissed the suit as untimely. We pause to clarify the nature of Molina‐Garcia’s claims and the scope of this appeal. Although the district court construed his suit as a Bivens ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals