Achbani v. Homan et al

Filing 24

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 16 is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 10/20/2017. (Kolker, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
NOUREDDINE ACHBANI,
No. 3:17-cv-1512 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
October 20, 2017

v.
THOMAS D. HOMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.
I.

Background

The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case,
as set out in the Court’s Order [Doc. # 22] Denying Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.
On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, [Doc. # 16], and an
Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. # 17].
On September 20, 2017, Defendants filed an Objection [Doc. # 20] to Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, in which Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s requested relief
could not be granted for want of subject matter jurisdiction, inter alia, and requesting that
Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. After consideration of the parties’ briefing and oral arguments
at the September 22, 2017 hearing, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, [Doc. # 22].
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names Defendants in both their official and individual
capacities, and asserts five causes of action. [Doc. # 16]. Plaintiff brings one claim directly under
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and four claims
under the Administrative Procedure Act, for “Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act[,]”
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, “Violation of Regulations[,]” and
“Arbitrary and Capricious.” Id.
Notice of Intended Dismissal
On October 2, 2017, the Court entered a Notice [Doc. # 23] stating that in light of the
Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court intended to
sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, and that any objections should be filed
by October 16, 2017. As of today, no objections have been filed by Plaintiff or any other party.
II.

Discussion

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” As set out in the Court’s Order [Doc. # 22]
Denying Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. Because the relief
sought in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is coterminous with the preliminary injunctive relief
request that the Court has already determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review,
the Court now dismisses Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
By its terms, the REAL ID Act of 2005 provides that federal district courts lack subject
matter jurisdiction to review orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5). The Second Circuit has
interpreted the Act to strip federal district courts of subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims that
2

would “indirect[ly] challenge” an order of removal. Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir.
2011). In Delgado, the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack
of jurisdiction where the plaintiff, who was subject to a reinstated expedited removal order,
“brought [a] mandamus action to compel USCIS to make a determination on the merits of her I212 application, alleging that USCIS denied her application in violation of the” APA, the Due
Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 54. Under Delgado, “determining whether
or not a court has jurisdiction over a suit brought against immigration authorities . . . ‘will turn on
the substance of the relief that a plaintiff is seeking.’” Milardo v. Kerilikowske, No.
CV316MC00099VLB, 2016 WL 1305120, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 1, 2016) (quoting Delgado).
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks (1) release from detention, (2) declaratory relief
that his detention and planned removal are arbitrary and capricious, (3) attorneys’ fees, and (4)
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. (Am. Compl. at 21). In his
Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff seeks (1) release from detention, (2)
cessation of removal, and (3) an injunction preventing Defendants from “taking actions that
deprive the Plaintiff of the legal right to pursue his application for an unlawful presence waiver.”
[Doc. # 17].
In substance, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint seeks the same relief as his request for
preliminary injunctive relief, in addition to seeking attorneys’ fees and “other relief as the Court
deems just, equitable, and appropriate.” These ancillary requests for relief depend upon Plaintiff’s
substantive claims for relief, which the Court has already determined it does not have jurisdiction
to adjudicate. Given the substance of the relief Plaintiff seeks in his Amended Complaint, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the reasoning of Delgado, 643 F.3d at 54, to entertain
Plaintiff’s action.
3

III.

Conclusion

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s requested relief,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16] is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 20th day of October 2017.

4