Alonso v. Kerry
| Decision Date | 07 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-0199 |
| Parties | MARCO ANTONIO ALONSO, Plaintiff, v. Hon. JOHN KERRY, Secretary of the Department of State and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
This case arises from the government's denial of Marco Antonio Alonso's passport application. Alonso (hereafter "Plaintiff") requests that the Court grant him a declaratory judgment granting him U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1503, or, in the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court allow him to amend his complaint to add two counts under the Administrative Procedure Act (hereafter "APA"). Docket No. 13.
Before the Court is the "Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge" (Docket No. 11) in the above-referenced case. The Magistrate Report and Recommendation recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. For the reasons stated below, the "Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge" (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED.
Plaintiff claims he was born in San Juan, Texas, through the assistance of a midwife, sometime in December of 1965. Docket No. 1 at 2. Fifteen days after Plaintiff's birth, his birth was registered with the State of Texas; the Plaintiff's name on said document is listed as Marco Antonio Alonso. Docket No. 2 Ex. 1. Plaintiff also has a Mexican birth certificate, stating that he was born in Matamoros, Mexico; the Mexican birth certificate lists Plaintiff's name as Marco Antonio Alonso Castillo. Docket No. 2 Ex. 4. Plaintiff states that when he was almost two months old, his parents registered him in Mexico as if he had been born in Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Docket No. 1 at 2.
In May of 2014, Plaintiff filed a passport application. Docket No. 1. at 2. There is no reference to the documents, if any, that were presented when Plaintiff applied for his passport on said date, as evidenced by the absence of a pleading of facts on the issue. See Docket No. 1 at 2; see Docket No. 13 at 2, 5. On July 15, 2015, the United States Department of State (hereafter "DOS") acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff's passport and advised him that his identification was insufficient. Docket No. 2 Ex. 6. Specifically, said correspondence requested the Plaintiff to submit a photocopy (front and back) of "one or more of the following valid documents in the name you are currently using: Driver's license; State identification card; Military identification; Student identification (high school or college/university); or Federal/state/municipal employee identification card." Id. The DOS correspondence also advised Plaintiff that his Social Security Number appeared to have been written incorrectly on his application. Id.
On July 23, 2015, Plaintiff responded to the State Department's request by submitting two identifications, a "Work ID" and a "TX ID." Docket No. 2 Ex. 6. On October 2, 2015, DOS denied his application, stating that Plaintiff's submitted supplementary identification was insufficient. Docket No. 2 Ex. 7.
On August 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (Docket No. 1), seeking a declaratory judgment that he is a U.S. citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1503. Docket No. 1 at 3. On October 14, 2016, Defendants timely filed "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" (Docket No. 4). Defendants' claim that Plaintiff's complaint fails for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Docket No. 4 at 1. Defendants' argue that Plaintiff improperly brought his claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1503 because Plaintiff's passportapplication was not denied on a finding that Plaintiff is not a national of the United States, as is required to obtain relief under the statute. Rather, Plaintiff's application was denied because Plaintiff failed to provide proper identification. Id. at 4.
On October 29, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed "Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" (Docket No. 5). Plaintiff argues that Defendants' position is "sophistry" in that a rejection of identifying documents in a passport application is, in essence, a rejection of Plaintiff's claim of U.S. citizenship. Plaintiff maintains that "[u]nless [Defendants] are asserting that Plaintiff has engaged in massive ID theft, and has gone to prison impersonating someone else, there is no real basis for denying the passport for lack of proper identification." Docket No. 5. At 4-5. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests in three sentences that he be allowed to amend his Complaint to add an APA claim arguing that his application was denied arbitrarily, capriciously and/or in violation of the law. Id. at 5. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.
On November 15, 2016, Defendants' timely filed "Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" (Docket No. 6). Defendants' respond to Plaintiff by stating that the issues of identity and nationality are treated separately under the regulations; an applicant must submit both proof of both identity and nationality when DOS determines eligibility for a U.S. passport. Docket No. 6 at 3-4.
On December 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge Torteya filed the "Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" (Docket No. 11). First, the Magistrate Judge, citing Karnley Jarbie v. Office of AG Eric H. Holder, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107974 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2016), held that Plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment is subject to dismissal because denying Plaintiff his passport on the basis of insufficient evidence of identity is not only lawful, but also not a cognizable claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1503. Docket No. 11 at 4. Second, in response to Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint to add an APA claim, the Magistrate held that Plaintiff's request failed for three reasons: (1) "[P]laintiff may not amend his complaintthrough argument in a brief opposing dismissal of his claims;" (2) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in conjunction with his motion in accordance with Rule 8 and Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) Plaintiff's motion for leave could be denied because an argument that DOS acted arbitrary and capriciously would be futile. Id. at 5.
On January 2, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed "Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and Opposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint" (Docket No. 13). Plaintiff re-argues that a passport denial for failure to prove identity constitutes a finding that the Plaintiff has not shown he is a U.S. citizen and asserts this Court would be "essentially closing its doors" to Plaintiff's claim of U.S. citizenship. Docket No. 13 at 5-6. Plaintiff also urges the Court to allow an amended complaint with an APA claim. Plaintiff asserts that the identification presented when he first applied for his passport, the "Work ID," along with court records from his criminal case and testimony from his father would establish his identity. Id. at 6. Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate's decision that Plaintiff's APA "arbitrary and capricious" claim would be futile was "unduly deferential" to DOS' decision. Id. at 6-7. Further, Plaintiff argues that by limiting the documents for proving identity that Plaintiff could provide in its correspondence, DOS' actions were "not in accordance with the law" under 22 C.F.R. § 51.23, a cognizable claim under the APA. Plaintiff also filed an amended complaint for the first time. Docket No. 13-1.
On January 17, 2017, Defendants timely filed "Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and Reply to the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint" (Docket No. 15). Defendants' re-argue that "jurisdiction under § 1503 is not available based on the grounds that 'the evidence received [was] not sufficient to establish identity'" and that an APA "arbitrary and capricious" claim would be futile. Docket No. 15 at 8, 11-13. DOS requests this Court take judicial notice of the Texas Department of Public Safety's Texas Identification Card features.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A party may challenge a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden to prove the district court has jurisdiction. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, courts must "accept all factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true." Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows dismissal of a claim if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). To withstand a 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A pleading that offers merely a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do," rather, factual allegations are facially plausible when they allow a court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009 (citation omitted). Last, "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial