Federal judge dismisses Baraka lawsuit over Delaney Hall arrest

A federal judge has dismissed Mayor Ras Baraka’s lawsuit against former interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba and Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Ricky Patel over his arrest outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility.

U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in an opinion issued Friday.  The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Baraka to file a third amended complaint within 21 days.

But Martinotti expressed reservations about whether Baraka can plead facts sufficient to survive another motion to dismiss.

The lawsuit stems from Baraka’s May 9, 2025, arrest after he arrived at Delaney Hall, a privately owned detention facility in Newark, while three members of Congress, including Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-Newark), conducted an inspection.

According to Baraka’s complaint, a GEO Group security guard invited him inside the facility’s perimeter fence in an effort to calm a crowd gathered outside.  Baraka said he remained just inside the fence for approximately 43 minutes before Patel ordered him to leave.

Baraka alleged that he complied.  When members of Congress later asked him to join them, Patel allegedly threatened to arrest him. Baraka said he again left the property, but was arrested minutes later when federal agents confronted him outside the facility.

The complaint accused Habba and Patel of conspiring to arrest Baraka based on a false affidavit that claimed he had knowingly entered and remained in a place where he was not licensed or privileged to be.

Baraka was held in federal custody for more than five hours before making a virtual appearance in federal court. The trespassing charge was dismissed 13 days later by U.S. Magistrate Judge André Espinosa, who called the arrest “a worrisome misstep” and criticized the U.S. Attorney’s Office for failing to conduct a “thorough, dispassionate evaluation” before taking severe action against a public official.

Baraka sued Habba and Patel on claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution under the constitutional remedy known as Bivens.  He also accused Habba of defamation and false light invasion of privacy based on statements she made on social media and during a Fox News interview.

Martinotti rejected all four claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The judge ruled that Habba’s statements about Baraka’s arrest and prosecution were made within the scope of her employment as interim U.S. attorney.  That meant the claims were converted into actions against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

“Habba is correct,” Martinotti wrote, finding that the Federal Tort Claims Act governed the defamation and false-light claims.

Baraka argued that Habba acted outside her official duties because she used a personal social-media account, made politically charged statements, and allegedly knew that the trespassing allegations were false.

Martinotti disagreed, writing that “the substance” of Habba’s statements — not the fact that she used a personal account—was central to the analysis.

Publicly discussing an alleged crime in the U.S. attorney’s jurisdiction was “of the kind an interim United States Attorney would be employed to perform,” Martinotti wrote.

The judge also rejected Baraka’s argument that Habba’s partisan motivations placed her outside the scope of her employment. New Jersey law recognizes that an employee may act with both personal and official motives, Martinotti said.

“Simply stated, the facts read in the light most favorable to Baraka suggest Habba had a dual purpose,” Martinotti said.  “That is not enough.

Martinotti acknowledged that the allegations against Habba were troubling, including Baraka’s claim that she accused him of trespassing while knowing the accusation was false.  But he said those allegations did not establish that her conduct was outside the scope of her employment.

“Although a federal prosecutor is certainly not employed to defame criminal defendants,” Martinotti wrote.  “If a federal prosecutor like Habba does so while publicly speaking on criminal activity within her jurisdiction, that is not outrageous for purposes of the scope of employment analysis.”

The defamation and false-light claims faced another barrier.  Martinotti ruled that Baraka failed to plead that he had exhausted the administrative remedies required under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  He also found that the federal government retains sovereign immunity from such claims.

The constitutional claims faced a separate obstacle.

Martinotti ruled that Baraka’s lawsuit presented a new Bivens context because Habba and Patel belonged to different categories of federal officials than the narcotics agents involved in the 1971 Supreme Court case that established the remedy.

The Supreme Court has made clear that “expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity,” Martinotti wrote.

He said Congress had created alternative safeguards for individuals who believe they were unjustly prosecuted, including the Hyde Amendment and a statute authorizing damages for people unjustly convicted and imprisoned.

Those remedies do not provide Baraka with complete relief, since he was never convicted. But Martinotti said that was not decisive.

“The focus is not on an individual’s recovery,” he wrote, but on whether Congress had created a remedial process it believed provided adequate deterrence.

The judge declined Baraka’s invitation to impose a new damages remedy, writing that courts must “defer to congressional inaction” when the structure of an existing government program suggests Congress has provided adequate safeguards.

Baraka also sued Habba and Patel in their official capacities.  Martinotti dismissed those claims because they were effectively claims against federal agencies, and the Supreme Court has barred Bivens lawsuits against federal entities.

The judge said any claims asserted by the City of Newark or Baraka’s mayoral office would face additional problems, including the failure to plead exhaustion and the absence of a recognized Bivens remedy for municipalities.

Martinotti dismissed all four counts without prejudice and permitted Baraka to amend his complaint again.