Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-27-2023
Case Style:
Sirley Amancio v. Jeffery Deperry and Town of Old Saybrook
Case Number: 3:22-cv-918
Judge: Victor A. Bolden
Court: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: New Haven, Connecticut civil rights lawyer represented Defendant was sued for false arrest and violating the Connecticu Trust Act.
Sirley Amancio sued Captian Jeffery DePerry and the Town of Old Saybrook asserting claims of false arrest and violation of the Connecticut Trust Act Mr. Amancio alleged that Captain DePerry arrested him without probable cause and detained him on behalf of the Federal Immigration Customs and Enforcement officers. Mr. Amancio also alleges that Old Saybrook failed to train its officers regarding the Trust Act, which, inter alia, prohibits Captain DePerry's actions. Id. at 5-7. As a result, Mr. Amancio alleges that he suffered various injuries including emotional distress and he is now in active deportation proceedings.
After Mr. Amancio filed this lawsuit in Connecticut Superior Court, Captain DePerry and Old Saybrook removed to federal court on the basis of the federal-officer removal statutes arguing that the Trust Act is preempted by federal immigration laws. Mr. Amancio filed a motion to remand the case to state court, arguing that Defendants do not meet the requirements for removal under § 1442(a)(1). Opposing the motion to remand, Defendants argue that removal under § 1442(a)(1) is proper because Captain DePerry was acting under the direction of a federal directive in an effort to carry out that officer's duty.
The State of Connecticut filed a motion to intervene and defend the constitutionality of the Trust Act. See State of Connecticut Mot. to Intervene, The State of Connecticut has filed a memorandum in support of the motion to remand, arguing that the Trust Act is not preempted.
Outcome: Motion to remand granted.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: