Carlos Jimenez ICE Lawsuit, $25 Million Claim After Ontario, California Shooting, and Why the Federal Assault Charge Was Dismissed

Carlos Jimenez, a U.S. citizen and father of three from Ontario, California, filed a 54-page federal lawsuit on November 6, 2026, seeking more than $25 million in damages after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer shot him during an immigration operation near a school bus stop on October 30, 2025.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer Eusebio Ortiz fired into Jimenez’s car as he tried to turn away from federal agents. It also alleges that FBI agents interfered with his hospital care and that a federal agent attributed false statements to two neighbors to support the criminal case against him.

The suit follows the November 2, 2026 dismissal, with prejudice, of a federal charge accusing Jimenez of assaulting an officer with his vehicle. That charge ended through a pretrial diversion agreement, not a trial and not an acquittal. Before that agreement, U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato had ordered the government to produce officers’ communications and records.

Every claim described below is an allegation in a civil complaint. No court has found that ICE officer Ortiz, the United States, or any other defendant is liable. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Justice Department (DOJ) have given a different account of the shooting.

This article covers what happened, what the lawsuit alleges, why the criminal case ended, who is being sued, and which federal and California laws will decide whether Jimenez can recover money.

Carlos Jimenez ICE Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Case detail	Information
Plaintiff	Carlos Jimenez, U.S. citizen, Ontario, California
Incident date	October 30, 2025 (about 6:30–7:00 a.m.)
Incident location	2800 block of South Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, California
Civil lawsuit filed	November 6, 2026 (54-page complaint)
Court	U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Civil case number	5:26-cv-06655
Defendants named in reporting	United States; ICE officer Eusebio Ortiz; CBP officers N. Jimenez and S. Cosey; FBI Special Agent Estevan R. Banuelos; San Bernardino County; about 20 unidentified defendants
Number of claims	13, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, and denial of medical care
Damages sought	More than $25 million in non-economic damages, plus nearly $179,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, property damage and related losses
Earlier criminal case	United States v. Carlos Jimenez, No. 5:25-cr-00366-KK
Original criminal charge	Assault on a federal officer, 18 U.S.C. § 111
Criminal indictment	November 18, 2025
Discovery order	May 5, 2026 (ECF No. 64), Judge Kenly Kiya Kato
Criminal case dismissed	November 2, 2026, with prejudice, after pretrial diversion
Plaintiff’s lawyers (reported)	Greg Jackson, Simon Law Group; Ayah Sarsour, Federal Public Defender (criminal case)
Liability determined?	No
Class action?	No, individual lawsuit
Settlement or claim form?	None

Who Is Carlos Jimenez, the U.S. Citizen Shot by an ICE Officer in Ontario, California?

Carlos Jimenez is a U.S. citizen and father of three who lived near Vineyard Avenue in Ontario, a city in San Bernardino County, Southern California. According to the complaint, he was driving to his job at a food pantry on the morning of October 30, 2025, when he came upon federal agents conducting an immigration operation. The complaint says Jimenez was not the target of that operation.

His lawyers say he slowed and approached the officers because children would soon gather at a nearby residential school bus stop and he wanted to warn the agents.

What Happened When ICE Officer Eusebio Ortiz Shot Carlos Jimenez on October 30, 2025?

The operation involved a vehicle stop on South Vineyard Avenue in Ontario. The two sides describe the next few seconds very differently.

Carlos Jimenez’s Account in the Federal Complaint

According to the complaint:

• Jimenez approached the agents calmly and slowly to warn them about children who would soon arrive at the bus stop.
• Officer Ortiz allegedly pointed a firearm at Jimenez’s face, cursed at him, and threatened to shoot if he did not leave. The complaint reportedly cites audio from the officer’s radio.
• Jimenez complied and tried to make a three-point turn because the officers’ vehicles blocked his path.
• Ortiz then allegedly holstered his gun, displayed pepper spray, and, without warning, fired multiple rounds through the rear passenger-side window of Jimenez’s Lexus.
• Jimenez was struck in the back and right shoulder, suffering gunshot wounds and a displaced fracture of his right shoulder blade.
• The complaint says no officer was in his path when he was shot, and that there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop, threaten, or shoot him.

The DHS and Justice Department Account of the Shooting

At the time, a DHS spokesperson said Jimenez, who was not the operation’s target, pulled in front of officers, was ordered to leave, stopped, and then “attempted to run officers over by reversing directly at them without stopping.” DHS said an ICE officer, fearing for his life, fired defensive shots.

The federal criminal complaint likewise alleged that Jimenez rapidly accelerated in reverse toward an officer. Jimenez’s lawyers have consistently disputed this, saying he was trying to leave as instructed and had begun moving forward when he was shot from behind.

Why the Disagreement Over the Vehicle’s Movement Matters

The central factual question is whether Jimenez was turning away to leave or reversing at an officer in a way that created an immediate threat of death or serious injury. Under Fourth Amendment law, the lawfulness of deadly force depends on the circumstances facing the officer. A vehicle can be a dangerous weapon, but the fact that a car moves in reverse does not by itself justify shooting the driver. Video, radio audio, the officers’ positions, and the timing of the shots will matter more than either side’s summary.

What Injuries Did Carlos Jimenez Suffer, and Are Bullet Fragments Still in His Body?

The complaint describes gunshot wounds to the back and right shoulder and a displaced fracture of the right shoulder blade. It says bullet fragments remain lodged near his right lung. Jimenez seeks damages for physical pain, emotional distress, and nearly $179,000 in medical bills, lost wages, property damage and related losses. Future medical needs, permanent impairment, and the value of non-economic harm would have to be proven with medical records and expert testimony.

Did FBI Agents Interfere With Carlos Jimenez’s Medical Treatment at Riverside Community Hospital?

After the shooting, Jimenez left the scene, sought medical help, and was later arrested. The complaint alleges that FBI agents followed him to Riverside Community Hospital, where he was being treated as a trauma patient with a bullet still in his body. It alleges that agents:

1. Pulled a nurse away from him.
2. Prevented him from speaking with medical staff.
3. Removed him from his hospital bed while he was still injured.
4. Handcuffed him with a leather waist restraint.
5. Drove him back to the shooting scene for questioning.

While he was allegedly bleeding and vomiting in the agents’ van, he was told not to “ruin their vehicle.” He was later taken to West Valley Detention Center in San Bernardino County, where the complaint says he was denied adequate medical care and medication.

These allegations are separate from the shooting itself. A person in government custody keeps constitutional protections, including a right not to be subjected to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause governs federal detainees, and courts borrow from Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), and Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), when analyzing such claims.

Why Did Federal Prosecutors Charge Carlos Jimenez With Assaulting a Federal Officer Under 18 U.S.C. § 111?

A federal criminal complaint was filed on October 31, 2025, and a grand jury indicted Jimenez on November 18, 2025. He pleaded not guilty and had no prior criminal history. A judge released him on bond.

The charge was brought under 18 U.S.C. § 111, which makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with certain federal officers engaged in their official duties. Under § 111(b), use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, or infliction of bodily injury, raises the maximum sentence to 20 years. The government’s theory was that Jimenez used his car as a dangerous weapon by reversing at an officer.

The suit also points out that the criminal complaint contained no statement from Ortiz saying he felt endangered, even though DHS publicly described the shots as defensive.

What Did Judge Kenly Kiya Kato’s May 5, 2026 Discovery Order Require?

Jimenez’s defense, including Federal Public Defender Ayah Sarsour and civil rights attorney Greg Jackson of the Simon Law Group, pushed hard for discovery, including officers’ text messages, emails, and operational records. Prosecutors produced some messages but none from Ortiz.

On May 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato granted the defense motion to compel (ECF No. 64). The order required the government to produce responsive communications, including those on personal and government phones, and, if none existed from Ortiz, a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury saying so. It also reached operational records, use-of-force and arrest policies, and communications with local law enforcement. The order warned that noncompliance could bring sanctions, including adverse instructions and the exclusion of witnesses or evidence.

The order did not find that Ortiz deleted messages, that agents fabricated evidence, or that the shooting was unlawful. It was a production order, and it was stayed shortly afterward.

Rules Behind the Discovery Dispute: Brady, Giglio and Rule 16

Criminal discovery in federal court rests on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the accused, and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), which extends that duty to evidence bearing on a witness’s credibility. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 separately governs the defendant’s access to documents and objects material to the defense.

Why Were the Criminal Charges Against Carlos Jimenez Dropped on November 2, 2026?

The Diversion Agreement Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2)

On the same day as the discovery order, the parties reached a pretrial diversion agreement. Jimenez agreed to show good conduct (maintain employment, avoid new crimes, and similar terms) with no admission of guilt. The discovery order was stayed, the trial date was postponed, and the charge was to be dismissed with prejudice after he completed the terms. Federal law allows delay in a criminal case for a written pretrial diversion agreement under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2).

Local reporting in May 2026 said the agreement did not require Jimenez to drop his separate civil claim, which was then reported as an administrative claim of about $35 million.

On November 2, 2026, Judge Kato dismissed the indictment with prejudice after Jimenez completed the conditions. The order made no finding on whether officers used excessive force.

What the Justice Department Says About the Dismissal

A DOJ spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times that Jimenez himself requested diversion, that a grand jury had found probable cause, and that diversion let him avoid the lifelong consequences of a conviction. DOJ says he performed well on diversion, so prosecutors asked for dismissal. DOJ has declined to address the civil suit directly.

What Jimenez’s Lawyers Say About the Dismissal

Jimenez’s side argues the prosecution lacked probable cause from the start and that diversion was pursued in part to avoid producing Ortiz’s communications and deposing FBI Special Agent Banuelos. Those are the plaintiff’s contentions.

Does a Dismissal With Prejudice Mean Carlos Jimenez Was Found Not Guilty?

No. A dismissal with prejudice bars the government from refiling the same charge, but it is not a jury verdict. No court has decided whether the shooting was justified. The dismissal does matter in one respect: for a malicious prosecution claim, the Supreme Court held in Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022), that a plaintiff generally needs to show only that the prosecution ended without a conviction, not that it ended in a way that shows innocence. Whether that rule fits a diversion dismissal, and how California law treats it, will likely be contested.

What Are the Fabricated Evidence Allegations Against FBI Special Agent Estevan R. Banuelos?

The complaint accuses FBI Special Agent Estevan R. Banuelos of fabricating statements in an interview report attributed to two neighbors, Manuel Villareal and Beatrice Morales. The report allegedly said they told him Jimenez had enough room to drive forward rather than reverse. According to the lawsuit, both later told a defense investigator that they gave no distance estimate, did not say he had enough room, and did not witness the shooting (they learned of it from news reports).

If proven, fabrication of evidence could support several claims. It could also implicate federal criminal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (falsification of records in federal investigations) and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law). Those statutes are enforced by prosecutors, not private plaintiffs, and nothing in the public record shows any such charge against any defendant. The allegations are unproven.

Who Is Being Sued in the Carlos Jimenez ICE Lawsuit?

Defendant	Role described in the complaint or reporting
United States of America	Federal government, sued for the conduct of its employees
Eusebio Ortiz	ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer alleged to have fired the shots
N. Jimenez	U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer
S. Cosey	U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer
Estevan R. Banuelos	FBI Special Agent accused of fabricating witness statements
San Bernardino County	Local government defendant
About 20 unidentified defendants	Not yet named

One point is worth noting. West Valley Detention Center, where Jimenez says he was denied medical care, is in San Bernardino County, which may help explain the county’s role in the suit. The exact claims against the county will be clear only from the complaint and later filings.

What Claims Does the Carlos Jimenez Complaint Bring Against the United States and Federal Officers?

Reporting says the complaint brings 13 claims, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, and denial of medical care. They draw on constitutional law, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and California tort law, discussed below.

Which Federal and California Laws Will Decide the Carlos Jimenez ICE Lawsuit?

1. Fourth Amendment Excessive Force: Graham v. Connor

Excessive-force claims against officers arising from a seizure are judged by the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Courts weigh the severity of the suspected crime, whether the person posed an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the person was resisting or fleeing, from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

2. Barnes v. Felix (2025): Totality of the Circumstances, Not Just the Final Second

In Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239 (U.S. May 15, 2025), the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “moment-of-threat” rule that some courts used to look only at the instant before an officer fired. Courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, which can include events leading up to the shooting. That matters here because the complaint stresses Ortiz’s alleged earlier conduct: drawing a gun on Jimenez, threatening him, and then allegedly firing after the gun had been holstered.

3. Tennessee v. Garner: Deadly Force and Fleeing Suspects

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), holds that deadly force may not be used merely to stop a fleeing suspect who poses no significant threat of death or serious physical injury. If the evidence shows Jimenez was simply trying to leave, Garner supports his position. If the evidence shows the car was being driven at an officer, the analysis shifts.

4. Shootings at Moving Vehicles: Scott v. Harris and Plumhoff v. Rickard

The Supreme Court has upheld deadly force against drivers who created a serious danger to others. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), involved a high-speed chase, and Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), involved a driver whose flight threatened lives. The government is likely to rely on cases like these. Jimenez will argue the facts differ: a slow three-point turn at a residential bus stop, not a high-speed flight, and shots fired from behind.

5. DHS Use-of-Force Policy on Moving Vehicles (February 6, 2023)

DHS’s use-of-force policy update dated February 6, 2023, says deadly force may be used only when necessary and when an officer reasonably believes the person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. It also addresses firing at moving vehicles and says deadly force may not be used merely to prevent escape. An agency policy does not itself create a right to sue, and a violation of policy is not automatically a constitutional violation. Still, policy language can be strong evidence of what a reasonable officer was trained to do. Readers should check whether DHS has revised the policy since the date above.

6. Federal Tort Claims Act: 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows damages claims against the United States for certain injuries caused by the wrongful acts of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, where a private person would be liable under the law of the place of the conduct. Because the shooting happened in California, California tort law (including battery, negligence, and false imprisonment) supplies much of the substantive law.

7. FTCA Law-Enforcement Proviso: 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)

The FTCA generally excludes claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. But the law-enforcement proviso restores those claims against the United States when the conduct was by “investigative or law enforcement officers” authorized to execute searches, seize evidence, or make arrests. The Supreme Court read that proviso broadly in Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. 50 (2013), covering conduct during law-enforcement activity and not only the act of searching or arresting. ICE, CBP, and FBI officers generally fit the definition.

8. Martin v. United States (2025) and the Discretionary-Function Exception

In Martin v. United States, No. 24-362 (U.S. June 12, 2025), a case about an FBI raid on the wrong house, the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause does not bar FTCA claims based on federal officers’ conduct and sent the question of the discretionary-function exception back to the lower court. The government often invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), which bars claims based on discretionary functions, to defeat FTCA suits. Expect that fight here, including how it applies to a decision to fire a weapon and to decisions about investigation and prosecution.

9. FTCA Administrative Claim and Damages Cap: 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and (b)

A claimant must first present the claim to the responsible federal agency, which has six months to act. If it does not, the claimant may treat the silence as a denial and sue. This is why the reported spring 2026 administrative claim matters.

Under § 2675(b), a lawsuit generally cannot seek more than the amount stated in the administrative claim, unless newly discovered evidence or intervening facts justify it. Reporting says the claim sought about $35 million, so the roughly $25 million suit appears to fall within that ceiling. The claim form and the agency’s response have not been independently reviewed for this article, so exhaustion remains a point the government may contest.

10. FTCA Deadlines: 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)

An FTCA claim is generally barred unless presented to the agency in writing within two years after accrual and suit is filed within six months after the agency mails a final denial.

11. FTCA Trial Rules, Fees and Damages: 28 U.S.C. §§ 2402, 2674, 2678 and 2672

• § 2402: FTCA cases against the United States are tried to a judge, not a jury.
• § 2674: The United States is not liable for punitive damages or for prejudgment interest under the FTCA.
• § 2678: Attorney fees in FTCA cases are capped at 20% of a judgment and 25% of an administrative settlement.
• § 2672: The agency may settle administrative claims. Larger settlements require Justice Department approval, and approved settlements and judgments are generally paid from the federal Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. § 1304).

So the headline $25 million is a demand for non-economic damages. It is not what the government will necessarily owe, and it does not apply equally to every defendant.

12. Westfall Act: 28 U.S.C. § 2679

The Westfall Act makes the FTCA the exclusive remedy for state-law tort claims against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, and the United States is typically substituted as the defendant. Section 2679(b)(2)(A) preserves claims for violations of the Constitution, which is why Jimenez’s constitutional claims against individual officers stand on a different footing.

13. Bivens Claims Against Individual Federal Officers

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), recognized an implied damages claim against federal agents for a Fourth Amendment violation. The Supreme Court has since narrowed it sharply, in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (2020), and Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), which refused to extend Bivens to a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent. Lower courts now ask whether a case presents a “new context” and whether any “special factors” counsel against a judge-made remedy. The government will almost certainly argue that Jimenez’s constitutional claims against Ortiz and the other officers fail on that ground. Jimenez will argue his case differs and can proceed, particularly alongside FTCA claims against the United States.

14. Qualified Immunity

Individual officers sued for constitutional violations may assert qualified immunity, which shields them unless they violated a clearly established right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), lets courts decide the two parts of that test in either order.

15. Malicious Prosecution, Fabricated Evidence and Heck v. Humphrey

A malicious prosecution claim requires, among other things, a lack of probable cause and a favorable termination. See Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022), and Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S. 556 (2024), which held that a valid charge does not defeat a malicious prosecution claim about a separate, baseless charge. Because Jimenez was never convicted, the bar in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which blocks civil claims that would undermine an existing conviction, should not apply. The diversion dismissal does not prove malicious prosecution, and the defendants will argue the grand jury’s indictment shows probable cause.

16. 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Monell and the California Government Claims Act

State and local actors, such as county personnel, can be sued for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and federal officers generally cannot be, because they do not act under color of state law. A county is not liable for an employee’s act alone. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the plaintiff must show a policy, custom, or qualifying decision by a policymaker. Claims for damages against a California public entity also generally require presenting a written claim first (California Government Code § 911.2 sets a six-month period for injury claims, and § 945.4 bars suit until the claim is presented or rejected). The general California limitations period for personal-injury and § 1983 claims is two years (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).

17. California Law: Penal Code § 835a, Hayes v. County of San Diego and the Bane Act

California Penal Code § 835a sets the state’s standard for when peace officers may use deadly force, and the California Supreme Court held in Hayes v. County of San Diego, 57 Cal. 4th 622 (2013), that an officer’s pre-shooting conduct can be part of the negligence analysis. California courts also allow claims under the Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) for interference with rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion. Federal officers are not state peace officers, so how these state-law standards apply to them depends on the claim and the FTCA’s incorporation of California tort law. The exact reach of § 835a to federal agents is an open question the court may have to address.

Can Carlos Jimenez Win His $25 Million Lawsuit Against the United States and ICE Officer Ortiz?

It is too early to say. The case has only just been filed, and the government has not formally responded. Several issues will shape the outcome:

• The evidence of the shooting itself: video, radio audio, officer positions, the car’s movement, and the timing of the shots.
• Officer communications: texts, emails, and records of the kind Judge Kato ordered in the criminal case, which Jimenez can now try to obtain through civil discovery.
• The witness statements: whether Villareal and Morales testify as the complaint describes and what the FBI interview report actually says.
• Legal defenses: the Bivens limits, qualified immunity, the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception, and the Westfall Act substitution of the United States.
• Malicious prosecution elements: whether the grand jury’s indictment defeats the lack-of-probable-cause element, and whether a diversion dismissal counts as a favorable termination.
• Damages: medical evidence for the injuries and bullet fragments, and the limits on punitive damages and jury trial against the United States.

Is the Carlos Jimenez Lawsuit Against ICE a Class Action?

No. It is an individual lawsuit. There is no public class-action settlement, claim form, deadline, or administrator tied to it, and no settlement of any kind has been announced.

Other people who believe federal agents used unlawful force would need to look at their own facts and speak to a licensed attorney. For more background, see our related coverage:

Nielsen v. Watanabe, Could the Supreme Court Make It Harder to Sue Federal Agents Like ICE?

Has Anyone Sued ICE and Won? Court Victories, Legal Grounds, and What These Cases Achieved

Renee Good Lawsuit, Family Sues U.S. Government and Federal Officials Over January ICE Shooting

Those matters involve different facts, defendants, and legal claims.

What Happens Next in the Carlos Jimenez v. United States Case (No. 5:26-cv-06655)?

The civil case is at its earliest stage. A public docket mirror showed only the November 6, 2026 case-opening entries (complaint, civil cover sheet, notice of interested parties, and request for issuance of summons) and warned that a more current docket may be available through PACER. Expect the following:

1. Service of process: The United States must be served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), and each officer separately.
2. Responses: The government can answer or move to dismiss, for example under Rule 12(b)(1) on jurisdictional grounds such as FTCA exhaustion and exceptions, or Rule 12(b)(6) on Bivens and qualified immunity. The individual officers and San Bernardino County can respond separately. Under the federal rules, the United States generally has 60 days to respond after service.
3. Discovery: Likely targets are body-worn and vehicle cameras, radio audio, phone records, medical records, witness statements, and internal use-of-force reviews. The records sought in the criminal case, which were never produced because of the stay, may be requested again.
4. Rulings on motions: The court will decide which claims proceed.
5. Possible settlement: None has been announced.

Representative Norma Torres (D-Pomona) has called for release of the audio and video and for answers about agent conduct and any discipline. DHS has referred questions to the Justice Department, and the FBI declined to comment.

Why the Carlos Jimenez Shooting Is Drawing Wider Attention

The case arises amid heightened scrutiny of ICE and CBP enforcement during the second Trump administration’s immigration enforcement push. Reporting has documented multiple shootings involving immigration agents since early 2025, several cases where vehicle-assault charges against civilians were dropped or collapsed, and instances of U.S. citizens being detained. A Guardian analysis and other investigations have questioned official accounts in some vehicle-related incidents. These are background reports, not findings about Jimenez’s case, which will turn on its own evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Carlos Jimenez ICE Lawsuit

Who is Carlos Jimenez, and what happened to him on October 30, 2025?

Carlos Jimenez is a U.S. citizen and father of three from Ontario, California. He says ICE officer Eusebio Ortiz shot him on October 30, 2025, as he tried to leave an immigration operation after approaching agents to warn them about children at a nearby bus stop.

How much money is Carlos Jimenez suing the United States for?

He seeks more than $25 million in non-economic damages plus nearly $179,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and related losses. It is a demand, not an award or a settlement.

When and where did Carlos Jimenez file the lawsuit?

He filed on November 6, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 5:26-cv-06655.

Who are the defendants in the Carlos Jimenez ICE lawsuit?

Reported defendants are the United States, ICE officer Eusebio Ortiz, CBP officers N. Jimenez and S. Cosey, FBI Special Agent Estevan R. Banuelos, San Bernardino County, and about 20 unidentified defendants.

What does the Department of Homeland Security say happened in the Carlos Jimenez shooting?

DHS said Jimenez attempted to run officers over by reversing at them without stopping and that an ICE officer fired defensive shots because he feared for his life. Jimenez’s lawyers dispute that account.

Why did federal prosecutors drop the assault charge against Carlos Jimenez?

The charge was dismissed with prejudice on November 2, 2026, after Jimenez completed a pretrial diversion agreement. DOJ says he requested diversion and that a grand jury had found probable cause. His lawyers say the prosecution lacked probable cause and that diversion helped the government avoid producing officers’ communications.

Does dismissal with prejudice mean Carlos Jimenez was found not guilty?

No. A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling of the same charge, but it is not an acquittal. The court made no finding about whether officers used excessive force.

Did a judge rule that ICE officer Eusebio Ortiz used excessive force?

No. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato’s May 5, 2026 order required the government to produce records in the criminal case. It did not decide whether the shooting was lawful.

Why did the judge order ICE officers’ text messages and emails?

Jimenez’s defense sought communications and operational records to test the government’s account. The judge ordered production and, if Ortiz had no responsive messages, a sworn declaration saying so. The order was later stayed under the diversion agreement.

Did the FBI fabricate witness statements in the Carlos Jimenez case?

The complaint alleges that FBI Special Agent Estevan R. Banuelos attributed statements to neighbors Manuel Villareal and Beatrice Morales that they later denied making. No court has found that this happened.

Can a U.S. citizen sue ICE or the federal government for a shooting?

Potentially. The main routes are FTCA claims against the United States (after filing an administrative claim) and, in limited circumstances, constitutional claims against individual officers, which the Supreme Court has made hard to bring under Bivens. The right approach depends on the facts, and a licensed attorney should evaluate any specific case.

Can Carlos Jimenez recover punitive damages from the United States?

Not under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 bars punitive damages against the United States. Claims against individual or local defendants are governed by different rules.

Will the Carlos Jimenez FTCA case be decided by a jury?

Generally no. FTCA claims against the United States are tried to a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2402. Claims against other defendants may carry different jury rights.

Is the Carlos Jimenez lawsuit a class action, and can others join?

No. It is an individual case with no class, claim form, or settlement website.

What is the case number for the Carlos Jimenez lawsuit?

The civil case is No. 5:26-cv-06655 in the Central District of California. The earlier criminal case is United States v. Carlos Jimenez, No. 5:25-cr-00366-KK.

The Bottom Line on the Carlos Jimenez $25 Million ICE Lawsuit

Carlos Jimenez says he approached ICE agents to warn them about children near a school bus stop and was shot from behind while trying to leave. DHS says he reversed at officers and that the shooting was defensive. The federal assault charge was dismissed with prejudice on November 2, 2026, after diversion, but that dismissal decided nothing about whether the shooting was lawful or whether the fabrication allegations are true.

The new civil case seeks more than $25 million plus nearly $179,000 in other losses. Whether he recovers anything will depend on the evidence (video, radio audio, officer communications, witness accounts, and medical records) and on legal hurdles including the FTCA’s exceptions, the near-closure of Bivens, and qualified immunity.

For now, the lawsuit is a set of serious allegations awaiting a judicial decision. It is not a settlement, not a finding of government misconduct, and not a final victory for either side.

Sources and Legal References

Court Records and Case Documents

1. Federal civil docket, Carlos Jimenez, Case No. 5:26-cv-06655: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/5:2026cv06655/1047015
2. NACDL case page, United States v. Carlos Jimenez, No. 5:25-cr-00366: https://www.nacdl.org/brief/United-States-v-Jimenez
3. May 5, 2026 discovery order, ECF No. 64: https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/01daa329-eb24-4bcb-bb66-53d71581e5a3/h-gov-uscourts-cacd-996172-64-0.pdf

News Reports and Official Statements

4. The Guardian, November 9, 2026: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/nov/09/citizen-shot-ice-officer-lawsuit-california
5. Newsweek, “US citizen shot by ICE agent files $25M lawsuit”: https://www.newsweek.com/us-citizen-shot-ice-agent-files-25m-lawsuit-12686101
6. Los Angeles Times, November 5, 2026: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-11-05/assault-charge-dropped-against-citizen-ice-allegedly-shot-from-behind
7. International Business Times: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-citizen-sues-ice-officer-southern-california-shooting-1831179
8. SBC Sentinel, May 2026: https://sbcsentinel.com/2026/05/u-s-attorneys-office-disposed-toward-dismissing-charges-against-ontario-man-shot-by-ice-agent/

Federal Statutes and Policy

9. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (FTCA jurisdiction): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t28/s1346/
10. 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (administrative claim): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t28/s2675/
11. 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (limitations): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t28/s2401/
12. 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (exceptions and law-enforcement proviso): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t28/s2680/
13. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (liability and punitive damages): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t28/s2674/
14. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (Westfall Act): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t28/s2679/
15. 18 U.S.C. § 111: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t18/s111/
16. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (Speedy Trial Act): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t18/s3161/
17. DHS Policy on the Use of Force, February 6, 2023: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf

Supreme Court Decisions

18. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
19. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/471/1
20. Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
21. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/658

Additional authorities cited in the text (Barnes v. Felix, Martin v. United States, Millbrook, Scott v. Harris, Plumhoff, Bivens, Ziglar, Hernandez, Pearson, Thompson v. Clark, Chiaverini, Heck, Brady, Giglio, Estelle, Bell v. Wolfish, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2402, 2672, 2678, 31 U.S.C. § 1304, Cal. Penal Code § 835a, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 911.2 and 945.4, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, and Hayes v. County of San Diego) can be checked on Cornell LII, Justia, the U.S. Code site, and the official California Legislative Information site.

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. The complaint’s allegations are unproven, and no court has found any defendant liable.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the federal court records (including the May 5, 2026 discovery order in Case No. 5:25-cr-00366-KK and the civil docket for No. 5:26-cv-06655), official statutory text, the DHS use-of-force policy, and published news reports, as of November 10, 2026. Last Updated: November 10, 2026.