Mendoza v. 26 Federal Plaza Immigration

Background

Jesus Manuel Mendoza filed the complaint without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. He sued “26 Federal Plaza Immigration” over events he alleged occurred in Brooklyn in 2017. Mendoza alleged that he was told his mother’s name was Enida Simet, but that her name was actually Nativida Simet; that his mother’s sister, Isabel Simet, was using his mother’s identifications; that he lost all his property; and that he developed a hernia because his mother gave him poisoned food. He sought money damages.

The court construed the reference to “26 Federal Plaza Immigration” as a claim against United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. ICE offices are located at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan.

Legal standard

Because Mendoza was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, or sought money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts interpret filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

Claims against ICE

The court held that the United States is generally immune from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued. Federal agencies and federal officials sued in their official capacities are also immune from constitutional-tort claims for which the constitutional damages remedy recognized in some cases does not apply to the United States or its agencies. The court therefore dismissed any claim for damages or injunctive relief against ICE because sovereign immunity barred those claims. The court also stated that the complaint contained no facts suggesting that Mendoza could state a viable claim against ICE.

Attempt to initiate criminal charges

Mendoza’s allegations about Isabel Simet’s alleged use of identification, together with his reference to ICE, suggested that he might be trying to assert that she committed fraud or identity theft. The court ruled that Mendoza could not initiate an arrest or criminal prosecution through this civil case. Decisions about whether to prosecute belong to prosecutors, and neither Mendoza nor the court could direct prosecutors to bring criminal charges. The court dismissed any such attempted criminal claims for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in case Mendoza was asserting any state-law claims.

Leave to amend and appeal-related ruling

The court denied Mendoza leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be corrected by amendment. It dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from that relief. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mendoza permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.