United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Re: ECF No. 16]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF 16) Plaintiff Pedro Medina ("Medina" or "Plaintiff") brings suit against Defendant alleging that he was wrongfully deported from the United States after being released from custody from San Quentin State Prison. (ECF 1) Defendant seeks to dismiss the Complaint on two grounds. First, that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (ECF 16 at 3) Second, that Plaintiff's Complaint, insofar as it may be construed as a challenge to a removal order, is not subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. §1252(g). ( Id. ) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1, the Court finds this motion appropriate for determination without oral argument.
Having reviewed Defendant's arguments, the record, and the relevant case law, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
The Court lacks substantial background information on the events leading to the filing of the Complaint, due to the Complaint's brevity and a lack of supporting documentation. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, pro se,  against Defendant. (ECF 1 at 2) The Complaint, denominated "Deportation, " contains only the following allegations:
I was wrongfully deported after serving time in Prison at San Quentin State Prison in 2002. I have children that were born in California. I want to appeal and have the deportation to Mexico reversed. I request to return to the U.S. to be with my children. I request a jury trial and a full panel of jurors.
( Id. ) The Civil Cover Sheet contains a demand for $500, 000. ( Id. at 4) The Complaint is silent as to the reason Mr. Medina was incarcerated, the date on which he was released from San Quentin prison, the date on which he was removed from the United States (which Medina describes as his "deportation to Mexico"), or the exact reason why Plaintiff was removed from this country.
Attached to the Complaint is a document submitted by Plaintiff requesting that all papers and responses be sent to a "friend/relative, " Christopher Castillo, whose residence was indicated as the Dona Ana County Detention Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico. ( Id. at 3)
On January 13, 2014, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss alleges two grounds: failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) due to the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1252(g). Because this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction under § 1252(g), it does not reach the question of whether Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which he is entitled to relief.
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and are "presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until the contrary affirmatively appears." Dragovich v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 764 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2011). As courts of limited jurisdiction, a federal district court is obligated to dismiss a case when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
An attack on the Court's jurisdiction can take a facial or factual form. See, e.g., Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A facial challenge, as is the case here, is an assertion that "the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction." Id., see also Retiree Support Grp. of Contra Costa Cnty. v. Contra Costa Cnty., 944 F.Supp.2d 799, 803 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (comparing a facial attack with a factual attack, the latter of which "disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction"). In light of a facial challenge, the Court assumes Plaintiff's allegations themselves to be true, and draws all reasonable ...