Amir-Bey v. Transportation Security Administration

Filing 4

ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Sharif Hassan Amir-Bey. The Court dismisses the claims Without Prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 1/27/2014.(VCC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
SHARIF HASSAN AMIR BEY
Plaintiff
v.

CIV. NO. 13-1927 (PG)

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Defendant

ORDER
Plaintiff Sharif Hassan Amir Bey filed this lawsuit against the
Transportation

Security

Administration

(“TSA”)

alleging,

among

other

things, that he was denied access through a TSA checkpoint at the Luis
Muñoz

Marin

Airport”),

International
upon

Airport

presentation

in

of

“a

San

Juan,

boarding

Puerto

Rico

pass,

a

(“LMM

National

Identification Card, and a Right to Travel Card” (Docket No. 1, ¶4)
because his “National Identification Card is not [sic] Government Issue
identification.” Id.
recognize

The Complaint also avers that the TSA’s failure to

plaintiff’s

National

Identification

Card

as

a

valid

identification violates his “right to locomotion” (Docket No. 1, ¶5)
which is protected by “Article IV of the Articles of Confederation and
Article 13 of the Declaration of Human Rights” as well as his “right to a
nationality” (Docket No. 1 at ¶9). The plaintiff asks that defendant TSA
and

all

its

officers,

agents

and

employees

recognize

his

National

Identification Card “as a valid identification for any and all future
travel.” See Docket No. 1 at page 3.
After reviewing the Complaint, we find that plaintiff failed to
exhaust remedies through the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler
Redress Inquiry Program before seeking judicial relief of his claims
pertaining the recognition of his National Identification Card as a valid
identification for travel purposes. The court thus DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE plaintiff’s claims.

I. Analysis
The
Inquiry

Department
Program

of

Homeland

(hereinafter

Security
“DHS

created

TRIP”)

in

the

Traveler

response

to

Redress

Congress's

Civil No. 13-1927 (PG)

Page 2

statutory mandate pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §44926. “The statute specifically
required the Department to create a process for people who have had
trouble ‘boarding a commercial aircraft.’” See 49 U.S.C. §44926; see also
Shearson v. Holder, 725 F.3d 588, 591 (6th Cir. 2013). The program is
considered to be a “single, formal administrative redress process for a
wide variety of claims, including: delayed or denied airplane boarding;
delayed or denied entry into or exit from the United States at a port of
entry

or

border

checkpoint;

and

continuous

referral

for

additional

(secondary screening).” Id.
Travelers who seek redress through DHS TRIP complete a Traveler
Inquiry Form and are asked to send additional supporting information to
DHS TRIP. See DHS TRIP, http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip (last visited January
22, 2014). After completing the Inquiry Form, travelers are automatically
issued a Redress Control Number, which matches travelers with the results
of their DHS TRIP case. Id. Redress Control Numbers can also be submitted
by

travelers

when

making

airline

reservations,

which

may

prevent

unnecessary screening. Id.
The Supreme Court long has acknowledged the general rule that where
relief

is

ordinarily

available
required

from
to

an

pursue

administrative
that

avenue

of

agency,

a

redress

plaintiff
before

is

seeking

relief from the federal courts. See Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 113
S.Ct. 1213 (1993). Exhaustion is required because it serves the dual
purpose

of

protecting

administrative

agency

authority

and

promoting

judicial efficiency. See Portela-Gonzalez v. Secretary of the Navy, 109
F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 1997) (citing McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145
(1992)).
In this case, because Plaintiff has not availed himself of DHS
TRIP, he has not afforded the various federal agencies charged with
correcting any errors the opportunity to formally review plaintiff's
claims. See McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 145 (1992) (dismissal of action as
premature would serve the underlying purpose of exhaustion by allowing
“agencies, not the courts, [ ] to have primary responsibility for the
programs that Congress has charged them to administer”).
Moreover, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies in this
case

will

promote

judicial

efficiency.

“When

an

agency

has

the

opportunity to correct its own errors, a judicial controversy may well be

Civil No. 13-1927 (PG)

Page 3

mooted, or at least piecemeal appeals may be avoided.” Id. There is a
possibility that use of DHS TRIP would render the current action moot.
Thus, at this juncture, the court refuses to review the merits of
plaintiff’s

claim

and

accordingly

dismisses

the

Complaint

without

prejudice.
II. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to
exhaust

administrative

remedies

before

the

Department

of

Homeland

Security in connection with his claims. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES
the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 27, 2014.

s/ Juan M. Pérez-Giménez
JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE