US Citizen, Army Veteran Detained by ICE Sues for Damages in Federal Court

A U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was detained by federal immigration authorities for three days last summer in Southern California filed a civil rights suit against the federal government on Wednesday.

The lawsuit, filed in California’s Central District, alleges that the U.S. government and individual federal officers violated George Retes’ constitutional rights as well as numerous state laws during his arrest and detention, which began during a July immigration raid at the Ventura County cannabis farm where Retes worked.

“At base, a central promise of our justice system is that innocent people like George are entitled to be free from arbitrary imprisonment, and inhumane conditions at the hands of federal agents,” states the lawsuit, states the lawsuit, which lawyers from the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, filed. “George brings this case seeking accountability for his unconstitutional and tortious treatment by federal officers.”

It’s likely to be an uphill battle for Retes, because federal law and court precedent both limit the ability of American citizens to hold federal officials civilly accountable for constitutional violations that have already occurred — and because Retes’ lawyers have not yet been able to identify the individual officers involved in his detention.

But California lawmakers, along with legislators in nine other states, are considering legislation aimed at making these sorts of lawsuits easier for plaintiffs like Retes. The California proposal, if enacted, would be retroactive to the spring of 2025 and potentially relevant to Retes’ lawsuit.

As KQED has previously reported, Retes said he tried to comply with immigration agents’ orders as he approached the farm in his vehicle last summer. But he said federal agents gave him contradictory commands before using tear gas, smashing his car window, pepper-spraying his face, pulling him out of the car and pinning him to the ground with their knees.

“George did not resist. Using his military training to stay calm, he voluntarily placed his arms behind his back to show compliance. Still, officers knelt on his back and neck, zip-tied his hands, and detained him for hours at the farm — without ever telling him what he was accused of,” the lawsuit states.

Included in the lawsuit are photos that show Retes lying face down on the ground, surrounded by more than a dozen federal officers as his hands are tied behind his back. The suit goes on to detail his treatment at Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, then the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, where he was held for three days.

At no time, according to the lawsuit, did authorities obtain a warrant, probable cause, or offer any legitimate explanation for Retes’ treatment or detention.

“He was strip-searched, deprived of his belongings, and held incommunicado for three days and three nights. He was never brought before a judge and was never charged with any offense,” the suit states. “Over the three days [approximately 72 hours] he spent in custody, he was deprived of basic rights that even suspected criminals receive. He was not allowed a phone call, access to counsel, or a hearing. He was also subjected to inhumane treatment, not being allowed a shower to wash chemical irritants off his body.”

The lawsuit relies on the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and Fifth Amendment protections against deprivation of liberty and property. But it also cites California law, including the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, which allows a person to sue another person for interfering with their rights by threat, intimidation or coercion.

It’s not clear whether the courts will allow a claim like Retes’ to move forward under that state law, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative.

Stark said there is a long history in the U.S. of states asserting their power to protect residents from federal constitutional overreach, dating back to Northern states’ response to the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War.

But, he added, a series of federal laws and court decisions in recent decades have limited the rights of Americans to sue federal officials for violations of civil rights that already occurred. By contrast, both the federal government and individuals have the right to sue states over past constitutional violations.

“It is unfortunately probably harder today than at any other point in the history of the nation to sue a federal official for money damages if they’ve violated your constitutional rights,” Stark said.

Stark said that’s why states like California are considering laws aimed at reclaiming those rights. But even without that law, he said, it’s still worth suing in Retes’ case.

“I think folks who are experiencing these constitutional violations are entirely reasonably pulling every lever they can to get redress,” he said.

Retes’ suit names the United States of America, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Navy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Customs and Border Protection, as well as the individual unnamed officers.

It asks for damages against individual, unnamed federal officers and the U.S. government, as well as attorneys’ fees and a declaration that Retes’ rights under California tort law and the Constitution were violated.

“George missed work, lost professional standing with his employer, and missed his daughter’s third birthday party. The traumatic experience exacerbated injuries he had sustained during his military service,” the lawsuit states. “And throughout his detention, no federal officer could provide an answer to the simplest question: Why am I here?”