Eugene Meeks v. Sandra Larsen , 611 F. App'x 277 ( 2015 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0326n.06
No. 14-1381
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
EUGENE MEEKS; SYLVIA MEEKS; GABRIELLE )
FILED
May 05, 2015
NEELY; MICHAEL DAVID MEEKS; THOMAS )
WILLIAM PIATEK; and DAVID STONE, JR., ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
)
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
SANDRA LARSEN; LESLIE LARSEN; D. )
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN; STEPHEN HAUG; and )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Defendants-Appellees.
BEFORE: BOGGS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and PEARSON, District Judge.*
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Three members of the Hutaree, an allegedly criminal militia
group in Michigan, along with certain family members, filed a civil complaint against federal
law-enforcement officers under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The complaint alleges that, in connection with the execution of
search warrants during the government’s investigation of the Hutaree and the resulting
prosecutions, the officers violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the First, Second,
Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the plaintiffs filed a timely appeal. Because the complaint
*
The Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
fails to state a claim under Bivens of the violation of any constitutional rights, we affirm the
district court’s decision.
I
On March 27, 2013, Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Piatek, Michael Meeks, Eugene
Meeks, Sylvia Meeks, and Gabrielle Neely filed a civil complaint against various federal law-
enforcement officials, alleging violations of their federal constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On September
30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which added Plaintiff-Appellant David
Stone, Jr., to the lawsuit. The Amended Complaint sought money damages from FBI agents
Leslie Larsen, Stephen Haug, and D. Christopher Allen and FBI task-force officer Sandra Larsen
stemming from the FBI’s investigation of the Michigan-based militia group known as the
Hutaree and the resulting execution of four search warrants at homes belonging to the Plaintiffs-
Appellants.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Piatek, Michael Meeks, and David Stone, Jr., were
defendants in the federal criminal case against the Hutaree. They were acquitted by directed
verdict at the close of the government’s case. The remaining Plaintiffs-Appellants—Eugene
Meeks, Sylvia Meeks, and Gabrielle Neely—are family members of Michael Meeks.
A
For a period of about 18 months, the FBI investigated members of the Michigan Hutaree,
a militia group that allegedly “acquired a significant arsenal of weapons, including components
of pipe bombs, and trained as a paramilitary organization.” United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939,
944 (6th Cir. 2010). On March 23, 2010, a grand jury indicted several members of the Hutaree,
including Thomas Piatek, Michael Meeks, and David Stone, Jr., on charges of seditious
-2-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
conspiracy, attempt to use weapons of mass destruction, and using and carrying firearms during
and in relation to crimes of violence. Id. at 943–44.
Also on March 23, 2010, a federal magistrate judge issued a search warrant for the
residence of Eugene Meeks, Sylvia Meeks, and Gabrielle Neely. On March 27, 2010, the
magistrate judge issued additional search warrants for the homes of Thomas Piatek and David
Stone, Jr. On that date, federal and state agents executed the search warrants at those three
locations. On March 30, 2010, the judge issued the final search warrant for the home of Michael
Meeks, and the warrant was executed that same day. At each of the four locations, law-
enforcement officials recovered items listed in the search warrants, including firearms and
ammunition.
According to the Amended Complaint, each of these warrants was supported by an
affidavit prepared by Defendant-Appellee Sandra Larsen. The affidavit incorporated information
provided by Defendant-Appellee Steven Haug, who allegedly contributed to the FBI’s
investigation into the Hutaree. Haug also reported this information to Defendant-Appellee Leslie
Larsen, who was in charge of the FBI’s investigation and ordered the execution of the search
warrants. Defendant-Appellee D. Christopher Allen supervised the team of state and federal
agents who executed the search warrants and seized property belonging to Plaintiffs-Appellants.
B
In the criminal proceedings against the members of the Hutaree, Piatek and Stone, Jr.,
moved to suppress evidence obtained during the government’s searches. Piatek’s Motion to
Quash Search Warrant, which was joined by Stone, Jr., asserted that the government lacked
probable cause to search Piatek’s residence because there was no nexus between the location and
any criminal activity. Stone, Jr.’s Franks Motion to Suppress Evidence, which was joined by
-3-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
Piatek and Michael Meeks, asserted that the warrant affidavit prepared by Sandra Larsen failed
to establish probable cause and contained materially false representations and omissions under
the standard elucidated in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge in the criminal case
recommended that the district court deny Piatek’s and Stone, Jr.’s motions. Specifically, the
magistrate judge found that “the warrant affidavit established probable cause to believe that a
search of the various residences and vehicles would uncover evidence of a crime or contraband.”
The magistrate judge also concluded that the movants “failed to meet their burden of establishing
their entitlement to a Franks hearing.” This conclusion was based on the findings that the “bulk”
of the alleged misstatements identified in the warrant affidavit “do not involve false statements at
all” and, “assuming that the other statements or omissions were deliberately or recklessly false,
excising those statement and including those omissions does not render the affidavit devoid of
probable cause.” After conducting a de novo review, the district court in that case agreed that
“the affidavits supporting the search warrants established probable cause for the searches.”
Furthermore, the court held that the movants failed to “establish that the warrants contained
deliberately or recklessly false material statements or omissions” and thus “there [was] no need
for a Franks hearing.” As a result, the district court denied the motions.
Despite their lack of success in seeking to suppress the government’s evidence, Piatek,
Michael Meeks, and Stone, Jr., were ultimately acquitted by directed verdict pursuant to Rule 29
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on March 27, 2012.
C
In the Amended Complaint in this civil case, Plaintiffs-Appellants brought a myriad of
Bivens claims attacking the warrant affidavit, which was prepared by Sandra Larsen based in part
-4-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
on information provided by Stephen Haug; the search warrants obtained by Leslie Larsen; and
the resulting searches and seizures conducted under the supervision of Leslie Larsen and D.
Christopher Allen. The Amended Complaint included: (1) Fourth Amendment claims for
unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure of personal property, and malicious prosecution
(Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, and 17); (2) Second Amendment claims for interference with the right
to keep and bear arms (Counts 2 and 8); (3) a First Amendment claim for infringement on the
free exercise of religion (Count 18); and (4) Fifth Amendment claims for violation of substantive
due process (Counts 4 and 10).1
On February 28, 2014, the district court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the
individual Defendants-Appellees after, inter alia, concluding that collateral estoppel barred the
re-ligation of challenges to the showing of probable cause in the search warrants; applying
qualified immunity and the three-year limitations period for Bivens claims; and refusing to
extend Bivens liability to the First and Second Amendment claims. Meeks v. Larsen, 999 F.
Supp. 2d 968 (E.D. Mich. 2014). This timely appeal followed.
II
Motions to Dismiss. “We review de novo the district court’s order granting dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6).” Top Flight Entm’t, Ltd. v. Schuette, 729 F.3d 623, 630 (6th Cir. 2013). In
doing so, we accept all material allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, but we do not accept “conclusory legal allegations that do not include specific facts
necessary to establish the cause of action.” New Albany Tractor, Inc. v. Louisville Tractor, Inc.,
650 F.3d 1046, 1050 (6th Cir. 2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must present
1
The remainder of the counts in the Amended Complaint asserted claims against the United
States for trespass to chattels (Counts 5 and 11), false arrest (Count 13), and false imprisonment
(Count 14), and derivative claims for exemplary damages (Counts 6, 15, and 19). These claims
are not raised in this appeal.
-5-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Bivens Remedy. In Bivens, the Supreme Court recognized a private cause of action for
damages under the United States Constitution—in that case, “for particularly egregious
violations of the Fourth Amendment.” Left Fork Min. Co. v. Hooker, 775 F.3d 768, 774 (6th Cir.
2014). The Supreme Court later extended the Bivens remedy to other violations of the
Constitution. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 16 (1980) (Eighth Amendment claims); Davis
v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 230 (1979) (Fifth Amendment due-process claims). However, the
Supreme Court has made clear that there is no “automatic entitlement” to a Bivens remedy, “and
in most instances,” the Court has “found a Bivens remedy unjustified.” Wilkie v. Robbins,
551 U.S. 537, 550 (2007). In deciding whether to apply a Bivens remedy, a court will analyze
(1) whether there is any alternative process for safeguarding the constitutional rights at issue; and
(2) even if no alternative exists, whether there are special factors that counsel hesitation in
creating a judicial remedy. Ibid.
Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields
government officials performing discretionary functions 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.’” Sheets v. Mullins, 287 F.3d 581, 586 (6th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). After a defendant raises the defense
in the first instance, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official
violated a right so clearly established “that every ‘reasonable official would have understood that
what he [was] doing violate[d] that right.’” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2083 (2011)
(quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). In analyzing an assertion of
-6-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
qualified immunity, a court will determine (1) whether, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the injured party, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right
was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).
III
A. Fourth Amendment Claims
1. Malicious Prosecution. In Counts 12 and 16 of the Amended Complaint, Michael
Meeks, Piatek, and Stone, Jr., brought malicious-prosecution claims against Leslie Larsen for
allegedly instigating a grand-jury investigation based on false and misleading information and
unlawfully seized evidence.
We have recognized a “‘constitutionally cognizable claim of malicious prosecution under
the Fourth Amendment,’ which ‘encompasses wrongful investigation, prosecution, conviction,
and incarceration.’” Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Barnes v.
Wright, 449 F.3d 709, 715–16 (6th Cir. 2006)). To succeed on a Fourth Amendment malicious-
prosecution claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a criminal prosecution was initiated
against the plaintiff and the defendant made, influenced, or participated in the decision to
prosecute; (2) there was a lack of probable cause for the prosecution; (3) the plaintiff suffered a
deprivation of liberty, beyond the initial seizure, as a result of the criminal proceeding; and
(4) the criminal proceeding was resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. at 308–09. Our focus is on
the second element.
Michael Meeks, Piatek, and Stone, Jr., were arrested following a grand-jury indictment.
Their malicious-prosecution claims thus face a high burden because “it has long been settled that
‘the finding of an indictment, fair upon its face, by a properly constituted grand jury,
conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused
-7-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
to answer.’” Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 877 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Ex parte United
States, 287 U.S. 241, 250 (1932)). There is an exception to this general rule when the defendants
knowingly presented false testimony to the grand jury to obtain the indictment, Martin v.
Maurer, 581 F. App’x 509, 511 (6th Cir. 2014), or testified with a reckless disregard for the
truth, Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 616 (6th Cir. 2014).
The Amended Complaint asserts that the indictment was based on “unlawfully seized
evidence and false and misleading information.” However, the Amended Complaint makes no
effort to identify what that false and misleading information was. Cf. Appellants’ Br. 25
(“Granted, Plaintiffs did not insert into the complaint any specific grand jury testimony but asked
the District Court for leave to do so which was denied . . . .”). Nor does it make any specific
allegations that Leslie Larsen “presented false testimony to the grand jury to obtain the
indictment,” Martin, 581 F. App’x at 511, stating merely that “Leslie Larsen caused to be
instigated a grand jury investigation which utilized unlawfully seized evidence and false and
misleading information.” It is not sufficient, even at the motion-to-dismiss stage, to make only
such vague and conclusory assertions without factual support. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); Martin, 581 F. App’x at 511
(affirming the dismissal of a malicious-prosecution claim in the absence of a specific allegation
of false testimony before the grand jury). Plaintiffs-Appellants have not pled “specific facts
necessary to establish the[ir] cause of action.” New Albany Tractor, Inc., 650 F.3d at 1050.
-8-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
The indictment in the criminal case against the Hutaree, which is not undermined by
specific, plausible allegations of falsity, established the existence of probable cause. Therefore,
the malicious-prosecution claims fail.2
2. Unreasonable Search and Seizure. In Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 17, Plaintiffs-Appellants
alleged that the Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights because there was no
probable cause to search their homes or seize “numerous items of non-contraband personal
property . . . without a valid warrant.”
In the Bivens context, “[i]t is well-established that a government investigator is liable for
violating the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately or recklessly submits false and material
information in a warrant affidavit.” Johnson v. Hayden, 67 F. App’x 319, 323 (6th Cir. 2003).
The question whether a warrant affidavit is so defective as to support a claim for damages under
the Fourth Amendment is governed by the standard set out in Franks v. Delaware. See Johnson,
67 F. App’x at 324 (applying Franks standard in Bivens case); Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271,
275 (6th Cir. 1989) (applying Franks to evaluate a § 1983 claim). Under this approach, “a
plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood
or showed reckless disregard for the truth and (2) that the allegedly false or omitted information
was material to the finding of probable cause.” Johnson, 67 F. App’x at 324.
Under the Franks standard, an individual challenging a warrant affidavit must “point out
specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false,” and this showing
“should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. When
applying this standard in the criminal context, we have stressed that:
2
In light of this holding, we need not address whether Leslie Larsen is entitled to qualified
immunity on this claim.
-9-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
A defendant who challenges the veracity of statements made in an affidavit that
formed the basis for a warrant has a heavy burden. His allegations must be more
than conclusory. He must point to specific false statements that he claims were
made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. He must accompany
his allegations with an offer of proof. Moreover, he also should provide
supporting affidavits or explain their absence.
United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).
In addition, a law-enforcement official “ordinarily receives qualified immunity if he or
she relies on a judicially secured warrant.” Hale v. Kart, 396 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2005).
However, if “the warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause, that official belief in the
existence of probable cause is unreasonable.” Yancey v. Carroll Cnty., Ky., 876 F.2d 1238, 1243
(6th Cir. 1989). Moreover, “an officer cannot rely on a judicial determination of probable cause
if that officer knowingly makes false statements and omissions to the judge such that but for
these falsities the judge would not have issued the warrant.” Ibid.
The Amended Complaint repeatedly asserts that Haug “omitted materially important
information” and “deliberately provided false information” to Leslie Larsen and Sandra Larsen,
and that Sandra Larsen deliberately or recklessly “asserted unfounded and speculative opinions
and conclusions” in the warrant affidavit. What the Amended Complaint does not do at any
point, however, is identify any statements in the warrant affidavit that are alleged to be false or
materially incomplete. Thus, even at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Plaintiffs-Appellants fall short
of their obligation to present “well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegation[s]” that “permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 680; see
also Unus v. Kane, 565 F.3d 103, 124 (4th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of a Fourth
Amendment claim where “the plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege that [the officials]—
deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth—made any material misrepresentations of
fact in violation of the Constitution”).
-10-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
In their brief on appeal, Plaintiffs-Appellants cite one paragraph of the warrant affidavit
as an “example of the false substance in the affidavit.” Appellants’ Br. 27–28. In this paragraph,
the affidavit explains that a confidential informant who was relied upon in the government’s
investigation of the Hutaree was “a reliable source of information,” based on his “accurate
descriptions of people and vehicles associated with the” group that were “later verified by
surveillance” and “consensual recordings.” Id. at 27. Plaintiffs-Appellants assert that these
statements are false because the informant was, in fact, “a completely out of control individual
suffering through significant emotional and behavioral problems during the time frame of his
cooperation.” Ibid. Even accepting this allegation as true, it does not establish that the affidavit
was false in any way. The informant still could have been a source of reliable information
despite these troubles, and Plaintiffs-Appellants offer nothing to undermine the affidavit’s
assertion that the informant’s information was verified by other sources. Furthermore, Plaintiffs-
Appellants make no effort beyond making conclusory statements to establish that, even if this
paragraph were false, it was deliberately or recklessly so, or that it was “material to the finding
of probable cause.” Johnson, 67 F. App’x at 324.
Plaintiffs-Appellants also argue in their brief that “Defendants had no basis to believe
that Michael Meeks resided at 13531 Bemis Road,” the home of his relatives Eugene Meeks,
Sylvia Meeks, and Gabrielle Neely, from which law-enforcement officials seized multiple
firearms and other items. Appellants’ Br. 40. They assert that the informant and certain
investigators “were well aware” that Michael Meeks did not live there and, thus, “the only
logical explanation” for the search of this premises “is a malicious intent to impose upon the
family of Michael Meeks . . . a form of punishment of Michael Meeks.” Ibid.
-11-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
The warrant affidavit, however, specifically noted that the Bemis Road address was listed
as Michael Meeks’s residence with the Michigan Secretary of State. There is no allegation that
this information was false. Moreover, there is no dispute that family members of Michael Meeks
actually resided at this address. In light of the address information from the Michigan Secretary
of State, as well as the other unchallenged elements of the affidavit, it would be entirely
reasonable for investigators to believe that there was “a fair probability that contraband or
evidence,” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983), related to Michael Meeks’s association
with the Hutaree would be found at the Bemis Road address. Thus, Plaintiffs-Appellants are not
able to demonstrate that there was any deliberately or recklessly false information material to the
finding of probable cause in the affidavit, see Johnson, 67 F. App’x at 324, or that “official belief
in the existence of probable cause is unreasonable,” Yancey, 876 F.2d at 1243.
This case is distinguishable from Johnson, in which the plaintiffs’ allegations were
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the pre-Twombly and -Iqbal “no set of facts” test.
Johnson, 67 F. App’x at 324. In pleading a Bivens claim, the Johnson plaintiffs’ complaint
pointed to specific facts suggesting that an FBI agent “knowingly included false information,
material to the finding of probable cause, in the warrant affidavit.” Johnson, 67 F. App’x at 324.
The plaintiffs in Johnson—similar to Plaintiffs-Appellants here—claimed that investigators
knew that an informant’s identification statement was false and that the target of the
investigation did not live at the address listed in the affidavit. However, the Johnson plaintiffs
also specifically alleged that the agent failed to disclose to the magistrate judge who issued the
warrant that the government’s investigations failed to reveal any wrongdoing on the part of the
actual owners of the property to be searched. Ibid. There is no such specific allegation
undermining the warrant issued in this case.
-12-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
Plaintiffs-Appellants have not plausibly alleged that there are material falsehoods or
omissions in the warrant affidavit or that the warrant is so lacking in probable cause as to render
reliance upon it unreasonable. Therefore, the claims of unlawful search and seizure fail.
B. Second Amendment Claims
In Counts 2 and 8 of the Amended Complaint, Eugene Meeks, Sylvia Meeks, Michael
Meeks, and Piatek alleged that the government’s seizure of certain firearms interfered with their
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They maintain that Bivens liability should be
extended to this context following the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), which
recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment.
In pursuing a Bivens claim, “a plaintiff must initially demonstrate (1) a challenged action
attributable to a person acting under color of federal law, and (2) conduct that deprives the party
of a constitutionally protected interest.” Left Fork Min. Co., 775 F.3d at 774 (citing Schweiker v.
Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 418–21 (1988)). Here, Plaintiffs-Appellants assert that, acting under
their legal authority and pursuant to an allegedly invalid warrant, federal agents searched their
homes and seized their firearms, ostensibly in violation of their Second Amendment rights.
As noted above, we undertake a two-step inquiry to determine whether Bivens liability
should be extended to the particular context at issue. Ibid. A Bivens remedy will be inferred
only after analyzing (1) whether there is any alternative process for safeguarding the
constitutional rights at issue; and (2) even if no alternative exists, whether there are special
factors that counsel hesitation in creating a judicial remedy. Wilkie, 551 U.S. at 550. Plaintiffs-
Appellants have, unsurprisingly, failed to point to any cases in which this or any other federal
court has applied Bivens to a Second Amendment claim. See, e.g., Yorzinski v. Imbert, 39 F.
-13-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
Supp. 3d 218, 223 (D. Conn. 2014) (“Bivens liability has not been extended to violations of the
Second Amendment.”). While this fact alone is not dispositive, it does give us pause, especially
considering the Supreme Court’s reluctance to extend Bivens. See Corr. Servs. Corp. v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 68 (2001) (“Since Carlson [in 1980] we have consistently refused to
extend Bivens liability to any new context . . . .”).
First, as the government points out, the Plaintiffs-Appellants advancing a Second
Amendment claim here had “alternative, existing process[es] for protecting” their rights. Wilkie,
551 U.S. at 550. They could have filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
41(g) for return of property. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (“A person aggrieved by an unlawful
search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s
return.”). In addition, Plaintiff-Appellants could have—and, in fact, have—sought to vindicate
their constitutional rights by filing a Bivens claim under the Fourth Amendment for improper
seizure, without requiring the court to extend Bivens into an uncharted area of jurisprudence.
Moreover, there are special factors counseling hesitation in recognizing a Bivens remedy
in this context. Plaintiffs-Appellants are correct that the Supreme Court has clearly established
that “the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Heller,
554 U.S. at 595. However, the Supreme Court has not set out the full extent of the right
protected by the Second Amendment. Neither Heller nor the Court’s subsequent decision in
McDonald, 561 U.S. 742, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
incorporates the Second Amendment against the states, addressed liability for constitutional tort
claims or suggested that a law-enforcement officer might be subject to monetary damages for
seizing firearms pursuant to a warrant. Nor did these decisions clearly establish that an
individual’s Second Amendment rights are violated by the deprivation of specific firearms where
-14-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
the individual’s right to acquire other firearms is not abridged. See, e.g., Sutterfield v. City of
Milwaukee, 751 F.3d 542, 571 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 478 (2014) (“Whether and to
what extent the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a particular gun . . .
is an issue that is just beginning to receive judicial attention.”); Walters v. Wolf, 660 F.3d 307,
318 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding no Second Amendment violation where the defendant lawfully
seized one firearm and did not prohibit the plaintiff from acquiring other firearms, but refusing to
foreclose the possibility that the Second Amendment applies to specific deprivations).
Even if we accept Plaintiffs-Appellants’ invitation to extend Bivens to this context, the
Amended Complaint is insufficient to state a claim. Especially in light of our holding that the
search warrant was not clearly lacking in probable cause, the law-enforcement officials here
would be entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did “not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow,
457 U.S. at 818; see also Doutel v. City of Norwalk, No. 3:11-CV-01164 VLB, 2013 WL
3353977, at *25 (D. Conn. July 3, 2013) (“In the absence of controlling authority recognizing a
Second Amendment violation in similar circumstances for the seizure by law enforcement
officials of a particular firearm, and in light of the scarcity of applicable Second Amendment
case precedent . . . , the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”).
C. First Amendment Claim
In Count 18 of the Amended Complaint, Stone, Jr., alleged that his First Amendment
right to the free exercise of religion was violated by the seizure of copies of the Holy Bible. As
in the Second Amendment context, there is a dearth of precedent applying Bivens to free-
exercise claims. See, e.g., Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 813 n.6 (8th Cir. 2008)
(“We have never found a Bivens action to extend to a Free Exercise claim, and it is doubtful that
-15-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
we would do so.”). In Iqbal, the Supreme Court “assume[d], without deciding,” that the
plaintiff’s claim under the Free Exercise Clause was “actionable under Bivens”—but only after
observing that the government defendants did not “press” this issue. 556 U.S. at 675. Indeed, in
making this assumption, the Supreme Court expressly noted it has “not found an implied
damages remedy under the Free Exercise Clause” and has “declined to extend Bivens to a claim
sounding in the First Amendment.” Ibid. (citing Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983)).
As with the Second Amendment claims discussed above, Stone had alternative methods
for seeking return of his property, and it was not apparent that the seizure of particular religious
materials pursuant to a search warrant, supported by probable cause, violated clearly-established
rights. Moreover, Stone has not pled any facts indicating that the seizure of specific religious
materials in this case “placed a substantial burden on the practice of his religion.” Wilson v.
N.L.R.B., 920 F.2d 1282, 1290 (6th Cir. 1990). Thus, even assuming that a free-exercise claim is
actionable under Bivens, the Amended Complaint fails to plead a constitutional violation
sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.
D. Fifth Amendment Claims
In Counts 4 and 10 of the Amended Complaint, Eugene Meeks, Sylvia Meeks, Michael
Meeks, and Piatek claimed that false and misleading statements and material omissions in the
warrant affidavit reflected “malicious” and “outrageous” conduct and “demonstrate[d] a reckless
disregard of the[ir] substantive due process rights.” As noted by the government, see Appellee’s
Br. 35, Plaintiffs-Appellants “concede[d]” in their response to the motion to dismiss below that
their substantive-due-process claims “as currently worded cannot proceed.” The district court
denied Plaintiffs-Appellants’ request to further amend those counts, see Meeks, 999 F. Supp. 2d
at 982, and for good reason. To the extent that those claims involve a challenge to the warrant
-16-
No. 14-1381, Meeks v. Larsen
affidavit and the resulting searches, seizures, and prosecutions, they are governed by the specific
guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, which “go hand in hand with criminal prosecution,” rather
than the “scarce and open-ended” “guideposts” of substantive due process. Albright v. Oliver,
510 U.S. 266, 274 (1994).
Plaintiffs-Appellants present an alternative theory on appeal that the law-enforcement
officials searched a residence that they allegedly knew did not belong to Michael Meeks out of
“a malicious intent to impose [punishment] upon the family of Michael Meeks” as retaliation
against Michael. Appellants’ Br. 40. Even if this claim, which does not appear in the Amended
Complaint, were plausible on its face, Plaintiffs-Appellants offer no explanation as to why this
claim would not more properly be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment standards concerning
probable cause and the veracity of search warrants, which have been fully addressed above.
IV
Plaintiffs-Appellants have failed to plausibly allege that their constitutional rights were
violated during the government’s investigation of the Hutaree or that they are entitled to a
remedy under Bivens. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision dismissing their
complaint.
-17-