United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's
action without prejudice.
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.
September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
[Doc. # 16], and an Amended Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, [Doc. # 17].
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].
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
of Intended Dismissal
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.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), “[i]f the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter 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.
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 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 I-212 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 ...