Garvais v. United States

FTCA Judgment Favoring Former BIA Criminal Investigator

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion: Garvais v US

An excerpt:

The ultimate Finding of Fact in this matter is that the BIA maliciously caused the institution and continuation of unfounded criminal proceedings against Duane Garvais in Spokane Tribal Court in retaliation for the proper performance of his duties in investigating thefts by BIA patrol officers with close connections to the Tribe. As stated, those charges were ultimately dismissed pursuant to the finding of this court that the Spokane Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Garvais.

The court finds that Mr. Garvais and his family suffered substantial emotional distress and turmoil as the result of the wrongful action of the BIA at the behest of and in association with the Spokane Tribal Council and its agents and employees. This emotional distress continued over a period of years, including Mr. Garvais having to seek habeas corpus relief in this court. The court finds that just compensation to Mr. Garvais is in the amount of $ 400,000 plus the sum of $ 13,102.66 billed by Mr. Weatherhead’s law firm Witherspoon, Davenport, & Toole.

Federal Court Allows FTCA Claim to Proceed against BIA Cops

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Garvais v. United States (E.D. Cal.) — Garvais v USA DCT Order

An excerpt:

The United States has now moved for dismissal arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution because the only factual basis for such claim were the acts of tribal police officers and the tribal prosecutor, who do not qualify as federal employees for purposes of the FTCA. In response to the motion, Plaintiff concedes that any claim based upon the conduct of the tribal officials could not proceed against the United States. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the United States has misconstrued the factual basis of his claim. Plaintiff argues his claims against the United States are based upon the conduct of the investigating BIA officer, Officer Little. There is no dispute that Officer Little qualifies as an “investigative or law enforcement officer[] of the United States” for purposes of 28 U.S.C § 2680(h). Accordingly, the court DENIES the United States’ Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction.