DANIEL v. BALTIMORE HOMELAND SECURITY et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4/12/2010. (ls, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Habtamu Daniel, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED APR 2 0 2010 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia v. Baltimore Homeland Security, Office of Detention and Removal, Defendant. Civil Action No. 10 0614 MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant "prevented my family from coming to the United States in the year 2000 from [K]enya. The agency also imprisoned my brother, ... who came to support me and they deported him without any reason although he was here illegally .... I want [my brother] to come here .... The responsible person ... [who] works as a judge in [the B]altimore immigration office ... denied his case ... after allowing him to reappeal to the appeals court. I want the court to help me bring my brother [here] and [to] bring those people to justice." Compl. at 1-2. Putting aside the question of the plaintiff s standing to bring this case regarding the alleged exclusion of his family and deportation of his brother, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the application and enforcement of immigrations law because they present nonjusticiable political questions. "Deciding and implementing immigration policy has been textually committed to the political branches," and "independent resolution of how to enforce immigration laws by a court would infringe upon the prerogative of both the executive and legislative branches of government." Sadowski v. Bush, 293 F. Supp. 2d 15, 19 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,217 (1962); Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23,27 (2d Cir. 1996); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, 470 (3d Cir. 1996). Such disputes "are beyond the jurisdictional reach" of this court, and are matters committed to executive agency discretion. Sadowski v. Bush, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 20 (citing 8 U.S.C. l103(a)(5) (which commits to the agency head "the duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against the illegal entry of aliens"). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Date: l.1~ 12 I )..0' 0 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?