In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-1050 ANTONIO LOPEZ-AGUILAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL OF: STATE OF INDIANA, Proposed Intervenor. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:16-cv-02457-SEB-TAB — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED MAY 9, 2019 ____________________ Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Antonio Lopez-Aguilar brought this action against the Marion County Sheriff’s Department (“the Sheriff’s Department”), Sheriff John R. Layton, in both his official capacity and his individual capacity, and a sergeant 2 No. 18-1050 of the Sheriff’s Department, in his individual capacity (to- gether, “the defendants”). His complaint set forth one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that when the defendants detained him for transfer into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. 1 Mr. Lopez-Aguilar also brought sup- plemental claims, based on Indiana law, for false arrest and false imprisonment. His complaint sought damages and a declaration that the defendants had violated his rights by detaining him. He did not seek injunctive relief. The parties later proposed, and the district court subse- quently entered, a Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction (“the Stipulated Judgment”), which granted declaratory and prospective injunctive relief but dismissed with prejudice Mr. Lopez-Aguilar’s damages claims. Following the entry of final judgment, but within the time for appeal, the State of Indiana (“the State” or “Indi- ana”) moved to intervene for the purpose of appealing the district court’s order entering the Stipulated Judgment. The district court denied Indiana’s motion to intervene. The State now appeals that denial. Indiana has standing for the purpose of bringing this ap- peal. The State’s motion to intervene was timely, and it also fulfilled the necessary conditions for intervention of right. Finally, the State has demonstrated that the district court was without jurisdiction to enter prospective injunctive re- 1The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). No. 18-1050 3 lief. Therefore, for the reasons set forth more fully below, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND A. On September 18, 2014, Mr. Lopez-Aguilar came to the Marion County Courthouse in Indianapolis to attend a hear- ing on a criminal misdemeanor complaint charging him with driving without a license. When he arrived, officers of the Sheriff’s Department informed him and his attorney that an ICE officer had come to the courthouse earlier that day look- 2 ing for him. He alleges that a Sergeant Davis took him into custody. Later that day, Mr. Lopez-Aguilar appeared before the traffic court and resolved his misdemeanor charge. That disposition did not include a sentence of incarceration. Ser- geant Davis nevertheless again took Mr. Lopez-Aguilar into ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals