United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R.
DAVID PROCTOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
October 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a report
recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 20). The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that, to the extent Petitioner alleges a
Zadvydas[1] claim for relief, such claim be denied and
dismissed without prejudice. (Id.). Finally, the
Magistrate Judge recommended Petitioner's motion for
summary judgment be denied. (Id.). On October 29,
2019, Petitioner filed objections to the report and
recommendation. (Doc. 22).
In his
objections, Petitioner restates his claims that he was
detained without probable cause in violation of the Fourth
Amendment and requests, among other things, that the court
“[o]rder and declare the removal order . . . unlawful
as applied to Petitioner.” (Doc. 22 at 16). However, 8
U.S.C. § 1252(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) deprives this court of subject-matter jurisdiction to
hear Petitioner's challenges. That section provides:
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any
other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including
section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus
provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court
shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on
behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by
the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate
cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this
chapter.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (emphasis added). The statute also
provides that “a petition for review filed with an
appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and
exclusive means for judicial review of an order of
removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis
added).
This
court is without jurisdiction to address Petitioner's
Fourth Amendment claims that he was detained without probable
cause. In Gupta v. McGahey, the Eleventh Circuit
held that “[s]ecuring an alien while awaiting [his
removal hearing] constitutes an action taken to commence
proceedings.” 709 F.3d 1062, 1065 (11th Cir. 2013).
Gupta, a removable alien, argued that federal agents
“illegally procured an arrest warrant, that the agents
illegally arrested him, and that the agents illegally
detained him.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit found
that § 1252(g) barred the court from reaching the merits
of those claims. Id. at 1065-66. Similarly, the
Eleventh Circuit held in Alvarez v. U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement that § 1252(g) foreclosed a
detainee's challenge to the methods ICE used to detain
him prior to his removal hearing. 818 F.3d 1194, 1203-04
(11th Cir. 2016). Thus, this court does not have jurisdiction
to address the merits of Petitioner's Fourth Amendment
claims.
To the
extent Petitioner requests that this court declare the
removal order unlawful (Doc. 22 at 16), this court does not
have jurisdiction to entertain any application seeking
review, reopening, reconsideration, or a stay of the order of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e); Ivantchouk
v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 417 Fed.Appx. 918, 920-21 (11th
Cir. 2011) (“no court may enter declaratory,
injunctive, or other equitable relief pertaining to a removal
order”); Madu v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 470 F.3d
1362, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006).
Petitioner
cites Gonzalez v. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, No. 13-cv-04416-BRO-FFM, 2014 WL 12605368
(C.D. Cal. July 28, 2014), in support of his claim that the
ICE detainer was not based on probable cause and violated his
constitutional rights.[2] (Doc. 22 at 1, 10). However, decisions in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California are not binding on this court. See Arriaga v.
Fla. Pac. Farms, L.L.C., 305 F.3d 1228, 1248 n.15 (11th
Cir. 2002) (“only the decisions of the Supreme Court
and [the Eleventh Circuit] are binding on the district courts
of this circuit”). Even more importantly, and putting
aside the propriety (or lack thereof) of the
Gonzalez injunction, Petitioner's reliance on it
here is unquestionably part of his attempt to have this court
declare his removal order unlawful. This court takes
seriously the limits Congress has placed on its
subject-matter jurisdiction and it does not have the
authority to do so.
Having
carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and
recommendation, and the objections thereto, the magistrate
judge's report is hereby ADOPTED and the
recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly,
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is due to be
denied and this action is due to be dismissed without
prejudice.
A
separate order will be entered.
DONE
and ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1]
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 690-92, 699, 701 ...