Case: Wilwal v. Kelly
0:17-cv-02835 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Filed Date: July 13, 2017
Closed Date: May 26, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On July 13, 2017, the plaintiffs, a person on the terrorist watchlist and his family, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Acting Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection, the Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Executive Associate Director of Homeland Security Investigations, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Attorney General of the United States, the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Terrorist Screening Center. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Minnesota, and Robins Kaplan, LLC, the plaintiffs brought their claims under the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs claimed that while returning from a trip outside of the country, CBP officers surrounded the family's vehicle with weapons drawn, handcuffed the plaintiff on the terrorist watchlist, and detained him and his family for eleven hours at the U.S.-Canada border. The plaintiffs alleged that, among other things, the family members were isolated from one another, asked questions, patted down, and had their phones confiscated.
The plaintiff on the terrorist watchlist claimed that his arrest, detention, unnecessary and extended restraint, incarceration, and interrogation constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment and constituted an excessive use of force in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The other plaintiffs claimed that their detention and unnecessary and extended restraint constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiff on the terrorist watchlist further claimed that both of his procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated. All plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' seizure was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion not in accordance with the law and contrary to constitutional rights, therefore violating the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, the plaintiff on the terrorist watchlist claimed that being on the watchlist itself violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The case was assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank and referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.
On October 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a more detailed amended complaint. The plaintiffs submitted their original claims and brought three additional claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. All of the plaintiffs brought assault and false arrest/false imprisonment claims. The wife of the plaintiff on the terrorist watchlist also brought a battery claim.
On November 7, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on December 21, 2017. The defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on January 19, 2018. Parties argued the motion to dismiss before Judge Donovan W. Frank on March 2, 2018. The court issued a minute entry for proceedings the same day and noted that a written order would be issued. The court issued a written order on September 27, 2018 dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' fifth claim for relief (violation of substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment). However, the rest of the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. 346 F.Supp.3d 1290.
Next, the defendants filed an answer to the plaintiffs amended complaint on October 25, 2018. Based on their admissions and denials, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief requested, or to any relief whatsoever, and request that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
The case was briefly stayed in early 2019 due to a lapse in federal appropriations. During a pretrial conference, the parties expressed an interest in settling the case for monetary relief, and on May 20, 2019, they filed a motion to stay discovery during an attempted settlement negotiation. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz granted the motion on May 24, staying the case until August 5, 2019. He extended the stay until August 21 to allow for more settlement conferences; the docket indicates that a binding settlement was reached on that date.
On March 30, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a sealed motion with a petition to approve of the settlement award for the minor plaintiffs in the case. Judge Frank approved the settlement on April 10; the amounts distributed to the minors were redacted.
On May 21, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal with a proposed order. The following day, Judge Frank dismissed the case with prejudice.
Summary Authors
Anna Belkin (2/14/2019)
Ellen Aldin (6/22/2020)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6226636/parties/wilwal-v-kelly/
Armijo, Rumaldo R (Minnesota)
Adams, Randall R (Minnesota)
Amundson, Susan C. (Minnesota)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (Minnesota)
Attorney, Noticing INS (Minnesota)
Amundson, Susan C. (Minnesota)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (Minnesota)
Attorney, Noticing INS (Minnesota)
Attorney, OIL-DCS Trial (Minnesota)
Balaban, Rachel G. (Minnesota)
Balderrama, Monica (Minnesota)
Barghaan, Dennis Carl (Minnesota)
Belgau, Andrea Elaine (Minnesota)
Belsan, Timothy Michael (Minnesota)
Bennett, Michelle R. (Minnesota)
Bowen, Brigham John (Minnesota)
Brinkman, Andrew C (Minnesota)
Buchanan, Michael F. (Minnesota)
Carilli, Joseph F. (Minnesota)
Chan, Priscilla To-Yin (Minnesota)
Darrow, Joseph Anton (Minnesota)
Dayries, Helina S. (Minnesota)
DeBorja, Ramoncito J. (Minnesota)
Delaney-DOJ, Sarah Elizabeth (Minnesota)
Dibble, Francis D. (Minnesota)
Drezner, Michael Leon (District of Columbia)
Enlow, Courtney (District of Columbia)
Evans, Walter Manning (Minnesota)
Fernandes, David Brian (Minnesota)
Flowers, Jodi Westbrook (Minnesota)
Foster, Jennifer M (Minnesota)
Fuentes, Raymond J (Minnesota)
Gaupp, John Joseph (Minnesota)
George, Scott Alan (Minnesota)
Goldsmith, Aaron S. (Minnesota)
Grant, Nicole Patrice (Minnesota)
Habeas, US Attorney (Minnesota)
Haefele, Robert Turner (Minnesota)
Halaska, Alexander James (Minnesota)
Hansen, Daniel John (Minnesota)
Henson-DOJ, Angie L (Minnesota)
Hollis, Christopher W. (Minnesota)
Hummel, Jordan Kelsey (Minnesota)
Jafek, Timothy Bart (Minnesota)
Johnson, Kristin Berger (Minnesota)
Kelly, Genevieve M. (Minnesota)
Kinney, Ellen Miletello (Minnesota)
Krahulik, Robert Emil (Minnesota)
Krieger, Jocelyn (District of Columbia)
Leathers, Daniel R. (Minnesota)
Lee, Casey Kyung-Se (Minnesota)
Lester, Robert Ira (Minnesota)
Levenson, Rebecca S. (Minnesota)
Lichten, Stuart Lloyd (Minnesota)
McCotter, R. Trent (Minnesota)
McGillivary, Gregory Keith (Minnesota)
Murphy, Lindsay M. (Minnesota)
Oswald, Craig Arthur (Minnesota)
Parker, Ryan B. (District of Columbia)
Pennebaker, Thomas Christopher (Minnesota)
Peoples, Tashiba Monique (Minnesota)
Pifko, Mark Philip (Minnesota)
Poindexter, Jeffrey E. (Minnesota)
Pyle, Michael Thomas (Minnesota)
Rivera, Carlos Francisco (Minnesota)
Robertson, Katherine A. (Minnesota)
Rosenberg, Brad Prescott (Minnesota)
Scarlett, Shana E. (Minnesota)
Schmedlin, William Francis (Minnesota)
Schulman, Brian J. (Minnesota)
Schwei, Daniel Stephen (Minnesota)
Seeger, Christopher A. (Minnesota)
Sheffield, Carlton Frederick (Minnesota)
Shinners, Katherine J. (Minnesota)
Siekert, Friedrich A. (Minnesota)
Singh, Rukhsanah L. (Minnesota)
Stern, Paul David (District of Columbia)
Stoltz-DOJ, Brian Walters (Minnesota)
Taylor, Lindsey H. (Minnesota)
Toennies, Andrew G. (Minnesota)
Tomlinson, Martin M. (Minnesota)
Ward, Brian Christopher (Minnesota)
Waterman, Brandon Matthew (Minnesota)
Weissglass, Jonathan David (Minnesota)
Welch, Alicia Hayley (Minnesota)
Wetzler, Lauren A. (Minnesota)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6226636/wilwal-v-kelly/
Last updated April 1, 2026, 5:09 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 13, 2017
Closing Date: May 26, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is an individual on the no fly list and his family. He and his family were detained when trying to reenter the country after visiting relatives in Canada.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Terrorist Screening Center
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
District of Minnesota 0:17-cv-02835
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: redacted
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Language(s):
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Case Summary of Wilwal v. Kelly, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/16468/ (last updated 6/22/2020).