Daniel v. Baltimore Homeland Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
APR 2 0 2010
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Habtamu Daniel, ) Courts for the District of Columbia
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10 0614
)
Baltimore Homeland Security, )
Office of Detention and Removal, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed without
prepayment of fees. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant "prevented my family from
coming to the United States in the year 2000 from [K]enya. The agency also imprisoned my
brother, ... who came to support me and they deported him without any reason although he was
here illegally .... I want [my brother] to come here .... The responsible person ... [who]
works as a judge in [the B]altimore immigration office ... denied his case ... after allowing
him to reappeal to the appeals court. I want the court to help me bring my brother [here] and [to]
bring those people to justice." Compl. at 1-2.
Putting aside the question of the plaintiff s standing to bring this case regarding the
alleged exclusion of his family and deportation of his brother, this court does not have
jurisdiction to review the application and enforcement of immigrations law because they present
nonjusticiable political questions. "Deciding and implementing immigration policy has been
textually committed to the political branches," and "independent resolution of how to enforce
immigration laws by a court would infringe upon the prerogative of both the executive and
legislative branches of government." Sadowski v. Bush, 293 F. Supp. 2d 15, 19 (D.D.C. 2003)
(citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,217 (1962); Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23,27 (2d
Cir. 1996); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, 470 (3d Cir. 1996). Such disputes "are
beyond the jurisdictional reach" of this court, and are matters committed to executive agency
discretion. Sadowski v. Bush, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 20 (citing 8 U.S.C. § l103(a)(5) (which
commits to the agency head "the duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the
United States against the illegal entry of aliens").
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date: l.1~ 12 I )..0' 0
2