Bhatia v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 35

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 29 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on September 15, 2014. (AA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
LAL BHATIA

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:13-cv-199-DCB-MTP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker’s Report and Recommendations of July 28, 2014 [docket entry
no. 29]. Therein, Magistrate Judge Parker recommends that the
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [docket entry no. 16] should be
granted, that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [docket
entry no. 23] be denied, and that this action be dismissed with
prejudice. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendations, the
plaintiff’s objections thereto, and applicable statutory and case
law, the Court finds and orders as follows:
Plaintiff Lal Bhatia is currently incarcerated at the Adams
County Correctional Center, serving sentences for “Mail Fraud” and
“Engaging

in

Monetary

Specified

Unlawful

Transactions

Activity.”

On

in

Property

October

17,

Derived
2013,

from

Bhatia,

proceeding pro se, filed his complaint [docket entry no. 1] against
the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United
States Citizenship and Immigrations Services, and the Bureau of
1

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, asserting claims under the Due
Process Clause, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, the Equal
Protection Clause, the Privacy Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The
claims center around Bhatia’s records maintained by the defendants.
On May 30, 2013, Bhatia made a Freedom of Information Act request
for records related to his immigration detainer, requesting its
amendment. The request was denied because Bhatia did not properly
verify his identity. Bhatia renewed his request on Spetember 12,
2013, ignoring the previously issued denial.
Bhatia requests that this Court (1) declare that his records
were not properly maintained by the defendants; (2) order amendment
of his records; (3) rescind the immigration detainer; (4) enjoin
any removal proceedings against him; and (5) award damages for the
defendants’ conduct. Bhatia seeks to have his records show that
“Mon

Wig,

in

order

to

conceal

his

money

laundering

crimes,

engineered fabricated charges that led to Plaintiff’s investigation
and convictions.” Report & Recommendations p. 4, ECF No. 29.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on several grounds: (1) a
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (2) the requested
records are exempt under the Privacy Act, (3) a failure to state a
claim, (4) the plaintiff is using the Privacy Act to attack his
conviction, and (5) the constitutional claims are not viable.
Magistrate Judge Parker found that the records Bhatia sought
to amend were exempt under the law enforcement exceptions to the

2

Privacy Act; Bhatia could not challenge his conviction in a Privacy
Act action; and that the constitutional claims were foreclosed by
the lack of a Privacy Act violation. He did not reach the issue of
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Bhatia filed his Objections [docket entry no. 29] to the
Report and Recommendation, and the defendants chose not to respond.
Bhatia

makes

seven

objections.

The

Court

ignores

his

third

objection as conclusory. The first, second, and fourth objections
reiterate Bhatia’s attacks on his convictions, and the Court thus
ignores

them.

The

fifth

and

sixth

objections

reiterate

his

arguments from his response to the motion to dismiss that the
exemptions of the Privacy Act do not apply, and the Court ignores
them. Bhatia’s seventh objection states that his constitutional
claims were against more defendants than Magistrate Judge Parker
addressed in his Report and Recommendations. Having reviewed the
record in this case, the Court is swayed by Magistrate Judge
Parker’s finding that the constitutional claims are predicated on
a violation of the Privacy Act, which did not occur. Therefore, the
Court overrules Bhatia’s seventh objection.
After a de novo review of the portions of the Report and
Recommendations to which Bhatia objected, the Court is unable to
find any error. The Court is satisfied that Magistrate Judge Parker
has undertaken an extensive examination of the issues in this case
and has issued a thorough opinion.

3

For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations is ADOPTED.
FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

plaintiff’s

Objections

to

the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations is OVERRULED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in
the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment is rendered MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of September 2014.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4