Mendoza v. 26 Federal Plaza Immigration

Background

Jesus Manuel Mendoza filed the complaint without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. He sued “26 Federal Plaza Immigration,” concerning events allegedly occurring in Brooklyn in 2017. The court construed that defendant as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), noting that ICE is located at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan.

The complaint alleged that Nativida or Natividad Simet came to the United States in 1979 and that Isabel Simet used Nativida’s information to apply for legal status. Mendoza described that conduct as a crime and said the two women should be sent to the Dominican Republic. He also alleged that Nativida gave him poisoned food, causing him nearly to lose his life and leaving him with significant pain. The complaint included internet-search pages, photographs, and a Bellevue Hospital medical record. Mendoza sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

Because Mendoza was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or raised claims over which the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual information to make a claim legally plausible.

Claims against ICE

The court held that sovereign immunity—the general protection of the United States from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued—barred Mendoza’s claims against ICE for alleged constitutional violations. Federal agencies and federal officials sued in their official capacities are also immune from constitutional-tort claims under the type of claim Mendoza appeared to assert. The court therefore dismissed any claim for damages or injunctive relief against ICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The court additionally stated that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Mendoza could state a viable claim against ICE.

Attempt to bring criminal charges

The court also dismissed any claim seeking criminal charges against Nativida and Isabel for alleged immigration fraud. It explained that the decision whether to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, not to a private plaintiff, and that a plaintiff cannot direct prosecutors to begin a criminal case. The court dismissed this part for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by an amendment. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), denied fee-free status for an appeal, certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the case during required screening based on failure to state a claim and defendant immunity, rather than deciding the underlying allegations on their merits.