If a U.S. Border Patrol agent has injured or killed your dog during a home search, you have the right to file a lawsuit against the federal government. However, the process is not straightforward and involves mandatory administrative steps before you can reach federal court. You must first file a claim with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), follow strict procedural requirements, meet precise deadlines, and only then pursue litigation if CBP denies your claim.
This pathway is illustrated by the case of Seth Daw, an El Paso resident whose dog Chop was shot by a Border Patrol agent on September 9, 2025, during a home search that yielded no migrants. Daw filed an administrative claim in October 2025, was denied in full in May 2026, and subsequently filed a federal lawsuit in July 2026 through the law firm Singleton Schreiber, LLP. The journey from incident to courtroom requires understanding multiple federal timelines, completing specific forms, gathering proper documentation, and recognizing when agencies have unreasonably delayed your case. Missing even one deadline or omitting a required piece of documentation can result in losing your right to sue altogether. This article walks you through the entire process, the pitfalls to avoid, and the specific legal claims you can bring for property damage and injuries caused by Border Patrol actions.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Federal Tort Claims Act and Why Must You Use It First?
- Filing the Initial Administrative Claim with Customs and Border Protection
- Understanding CBP’s Review and Decision Timeline
- The Six-Month Litigation Deadline After Claim Denial
- Critical Procedural Pitfalls and Missed Deadlines
- Specific Legal Claims in Border Patrol Dog Incident Cases
- The Reality of Settlement and Litigation Outcomes
What Is the Federal Tort Claims Act and Why Must You Use It First?
The Federal Tort Claims Act is the legal framework that allows private citizens to sue the federal government for damages caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. When a Border Patrol agent enters your home—whether lawfully or unlawfully during an immigration enforcement action—and causes property damage or injury, you cannot simply file a lawsuit in federal court the day after the incident. Instead, you must first exhaust an administrative remedial process by filing a formal claim directly with the agency responsible for the agent’s conduct.
This requirement exists for all FTCA claims and cannot be bypassed, even if you believe the government’s actions were clearly unlawful. The FTCA claim is not optional or preliminary—it is mandatory. If you skip this step and go directly to federal court, your lawsuit will be dismissed immediately. The administrative claim serves multiple purposes: it gives the federal agency an opportunity to investigate, evaluate, and potentially settle your claim without litigation, and it creates an official record of your damages. In the Border Patrol dog incident context, this means CBP must be given the chance to acknowledge fault and compensate you before a judge ever sees the case.
Filing the Initial Administrative Claim with Customs and Border Protection
Your first action after a Border Patrol incident is to file a Standard Form 95, “Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death,” with the CBP facility nearest the geographic location where the incident occurred. This form is not a simple notice; it is a formal legal document that establishes your official claim and begins the administrative review process. The critical element of this form is that you must clearly describe the incident, the property damaged (in this case, your dog), and the specific dollar amount you are seeking in compensation. You cannot be vague about the amount or submit an amended figure later; the CBP’s authority to settle is often limited by the initial claim amount you state. Accompanying the Standard Form 95, you must submit comprehensive supporting documentation that substantiates every element of your claim. This includes witness statements from anyone who observed the incident, police reports (if law enforcement responded to the shooting), veterinary records if your dog survived with injuries, and evidence of monetary loss such as veterinary bills, invoices, or quotes for the value of the animal.
If your dog was killed—as in the Daw case—you may include veterinary appraisals of the dog’s value, proof of adoption fees or purchase price, and documentation of specialized training if the dog had a service role. Without this documentation, CBP will likely deny your claim as unsupported, even if the facts are undisputed. A major limitation in Border Patrol dog incident cases is that the “value” of a pet is legally complicated. Texas courts and federal courts generally treat pets as personal property subject to the “fair market value” rule, meaning you can recover what the dog was worth if sold, not the emotional or sentimental value you placed on the animal. For a family dog with no specialized training and no adoption record, this may amount to only a few hundred dollars, far below the actual cost of obtaining a replacement animal. If you can document that your dog had specialized training (service dog, competition animal, breeding animal), or provide records showing what a comparable animal would cost in your area, you strengthen your claim for higher compensation.
Understanding CBP’s Review and Decision Timeline
Once you submit your Standard Form 95 to the appropriate CBP facility, the agency has up to six months to investigate, review, and issue a written decision on your claim. This six-month window is a critical timeline to mark on your calendar, because it determines your next steps. During this period, CBP’s legal staff will review the evidence, possibly interview witnesses, and determine whether to approve the claim, deny it in whole or in part, or offer a settlement. The location where your claim is reviewed depends on the dollar amount.
claims requesting $10,000 or less are reviewed by CBP’s Office of Assistant Chief Counsel in Indianapolis, which handles routine property damage matters from across the country. Claims exceeding $10,000 are referred to CBP’s legal counsel office nearest the incident location, giving those claims more individualized review but potentially longer processing times. In the Daw case, the administrative claim was filed in October 2025 and denied in full in May 2026—a span of seven months, exceeding CBP’s nominal six-month window. The agency’s failure to meet its own deadline does not invalidate the claim denial but may give you grounds to proceed to federal court even without a formal written denial.
The Six-Month Litigation Deadline After Claim Denial
This is the most consequential deadline in the entire FTCA process: if CBP denies your claim, you have exactly six months from the date of the written denial to file a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court. The denial letter must be sent via registered mail or certified mail, and the six-month countdown begins from the date CBP mailed the letter, not the date you received it. Missing this deadline eliminates your right to sue in federal court entirely—there is no extension, no waiver, and no second chance. Courts have dismissed cases where plaintiffs filed even one day late. If you hired an attorney before filing the FTCA claim, that attorney should immediately calendar this deadline and ensure that the federal lawsuit is filed well before expiration.
In the Daw case, the claim was denied in May 2026, and the federal lawsuit was filed in July 2026—well within the six-month window and ensuring that the case could proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. Working with an attorney experienced in federal tort claims is essential because the procedural requirements for filing in federal court differ substantially from the administrative claim process. A critical protection exists if CBP does not adjudicate your claim within six months: you may treat the claim as denied and file suit in federal court without waiting for a formal decision letter. This provision prevents agencies from indefinitely delaying compensation by simply not making a decision. If you are approaching the six-month mark and CBP has not issued a written denial, you have the right to file the federal lawsuit immediately, and doing so does not forfeit any potential agency settlement if the claim is later resolved.
Critical Procedural Pitfalls and Missed Deadlines
The FTCA process is unforgiving of technical errors and missed deadlines. If you file your administrative claim more than two years after the incident date, your claim will be rejected as untimely, and you will have no further right to pursue compensation through this process. For the El Paso incident on September 9, 2025, the deadline to file the administrative claim expired on September 9, 2027. Waiting three years to file, even if you were gathering evidence during that time, means losing your claim entirely.
Another common mistake is submitting an administrative claim to the wrong agency or the wrong CBP office. Border Patrol is part of CBP, so your claim must go to CBP’s appropriate office—not to the Department of Homeland Security generally, not to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and not to a local Border Patrol station that lacks legal authority to accept FTCA claims. Filing in the wrong place can consume precious time before the agency forwards it to the correct office, and depending on how the transfer occurs, you might miss the two-year filing deadline. Additionally, if your claim form is incomplete or your supporting documentation does not substantiate your damages, CBP will not typically reach out to request more information; it will simply deny the claim as lacking sufficient evidence. You are responsible for submitting a complete package the first time.
Specific Legal Claims in Border Patrol Dog Incident Cases
When Seth Daw filed his federal lawsuit against the U.S. government, his complaint included claims for assault, battery, conversion, trespass to property, and negligence. These claims arise under Texas state law principles that are incorporated into FTCA suits. “Conversion” refers to the unlawful taking or destruction of personal property—here, the shooting of the dog. “Trespass to property” challenges the Border Patrol agent’s authority to be in the home in the first place or to act as they did once inside.
“Battery” and “assault” refer to harmful or offensive contact or the threat of harmful contact, though these are somewhat unconventional claims when the dog, not the owner, was the direct victim. The negligence claim asserts that the agent failed to exercise reasonable care and judgment when discharging a firearm in a residential setting. This theory is particularly powerful if the dog was secured in a restroom, as was the case with Chop, or if there was no reasonable threat that the animal posed to the agent. A secured dog presents no immediate danger, and a reasonable officer would not fire a weapon into a room containing a secured pet without clear justification. The viability of these claims depends heavily on what the CBP investigation reveals about why the agent chose to shoot the dog and whether CBP had authorized or trained the agent to use force in response to pets encountered during home searches.
The Reality of Settlement and Litigation Outcomes
Government agencies settle FTCA claims at rates substantially lower than private civil litigation because the agency has no insurance company pressuring settlement and faces minimal reputational consequence from denials. CBP’s average settlement amount for property damage claims is significantly lower than what private defendants might offer in comparable state court cases. This means that even if you win your federal lawsuit, the damages award may be modest compared to your actual losses and the value of your dog to your family.
The Daw case illustrates this dynamic: despite filing in July 2026 after a CBP denial, the case required federal litigation to pursue a remedy. The federal court can award damages for the value of the dog, costs associated with the incident, and potentially attorney’s fees if the government’s position was unreasonable, but it cannot award punitive damages against federal agencies under the FTCA. Winning requires proving that the agent’s actions violated an established tort law duty, that the agent was acting within the scope of employment (which is virtually automatic for Border Patrol agents conducting searches), and that the damages are quantifiable. The outcome depends on the specific facts of your incident, the strength of your evidence, and the particular judge assigned to your case in the relevant federal district.