RICCY MABEL ENRIQUEZ-PERDOMO v. RICARDO A. NEWMAN, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS AGENT, ET AL. - Articles

All Content

RICCY MABEL ENRIQUEZ-PERDOMO v. RICARDO A. NEWMAN, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS AGENT, ET AL.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Aug 20, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Benjamin T.D. Pugh, PUGH AND ROACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Timothy D. Thompson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Benjamin T.D. Pugh, Christopher D. Roach, PUGH AND ROACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, Michael J. O’Hara, O’HARA, TAYLOR, SLOAN, CASSIDY, BECK PLLC, Crestview Hills, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Timothy D. Thompson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Judge(s): MOORE, GIBBONS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Riccy Enriquez-Perdomo entered the United States illegally as a child. She was initially ordered to be deported, but later benefited from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), which makes her order of removal non-enforceable. Prior to the immediate events, which gave rise to this lawsuit, Enriquez-Perdomo was a well-known visitor at a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) facility in Louisville, Kentucky where she frequently went to post bond for those held in custody. One day when Enriquez-Perdomo visited the ICE office in Louisville, she was suddenly detained by several ICE agents without a warrant or probable cause, despite her DACA status. Enriquez-Perdomo was then repeatedly moved to different locations across the country until she was finally released eight days later. After her release, Enriquez-Perdomo sued the ICE agents who detained her, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, relying on the Supreme Court case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics to establish an implied federal cause of action. 403 U.S. 388 (1971). After a previous appeal, her First Amendment claims were dismissed. Upon remand, the district court then granted summary judgment to defendants, reasoning that all Enriquez-Perdomo’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims were invalid extensions of Bivens. Enriquez-Perdomo appealed. We now affirm the decision of the district court.

Attachments: