Bonifacio v. United States of America

Background

Hector Bonifacio, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States and several federal defendants over the State Department’s handling of his passport renewal application. Bonifacio alleged that he waited nearly eleven months for a renewed passport and that the delay resulted from racial animus based on his Dominican descent, Latino upbringing, appearance, accent, and birth in the Caribbean region.

The State Department approved the application and issued Bonifacio a renewed passport in March 2017, after this lawsuit began. Bonifacio’s operative complaint asserted claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Mandamus Act. It also alleged an equal-protection violation and sought declaratory relief, an order requiring passport issuance, and money damages.

Jurisdictional dismissals

The court held that Bonifacio’s request for mandamus and related injunctive relief was moot because the government had already issued the passport he sought. A moot claim no longer presents a live dispute that a federal court can remedy. The court therefore dismissed the Mandamus Act claim and related requests for injunctive and declaratory relief as moot.

The court dismissed the claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) for lack of jurisdiction. That statute permits a person to seek a declaration of citizenship after a final administrative denial of a right or privilege of citizenship. Bonifacio alleged that the State Department had issued him a passport, so the court found that he had not been denied such a right or privilege and lacked standing to bring the claim. The court also noted that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies for this claim.

The court dismissed Bonifacio’s claim for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act for lack of jurisdiction because he did not allege that he had first filed an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency. The court also dismissed claims against federal officers in their official capacities because sovereign immunity barred those claims under the circumstances alleged.

Failure to state a claim

The court dismissed Bonifacio’s Administrative Procedure Act claim under the rule requiring dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a plausible claim. The court found that no statute or regulation required the State Department to process the application within the two-to-six-week period Bonifacio identified. The court also concluded that the eleven-month delay did not exceed the agency’s legal authority or meet the high standard for arbitrary and capricious conduct.

The court dismissed the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because that statute applies to discrimination by state actors, while Bonifacio’s allegations concerned federal officials and the State Department.

The court also dismissed Bonifacio’s equal-protection claim. It held that his allegations of a government policy, pattern, and practice of racial discrimination were conclusory and did not provide enough factual support to state a plausible constitutional violation. The court did not address the Government’s additional arguments that no comparable constitutional damages claim was available in this context, that some defendants were absolutely immune, and that the individual defendants had qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss. Because Bonifacio had already filed three complaints and the court found no indication that a fourth amendment would produce a valid claim, it declined to allow another amendment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.