Gardener v. Barr
| Decision Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:18 CV 620 (JMB) |
| Parties | NORMAN GARDENER, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c).3 Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition and the issues are fully briefed. In addition, the parties appeared for oral argument on February 20, 2019. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff Norman Gardener, a native of Jamaica and lawful permanent resident of the United States, filed an application for naturalization in September 2015. He attended naturalization interviews in February and April 2016. When two years had passed without adecision on his pending application, plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b),4 in which he asks the Court to either naturalize him or direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to adjudicate his application. Shortly after he filed suit, however, DHS placed plaintiff in removal proceedings. Defendants now seek dismissal arguing, first, that the Court lost jurisdiction when DHS initiated removal proceedings and, second, that even if the Court retains jurisdiction, there is no longer a remedy available to plaintiff.
Plaintiff, who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1991, has filed two applications for naturalization. He filed his first application on February 5, 1998. At his interview in October 2000, he stated both that he had voted in an election and that he had never falsely represented that he was a citizen of the United States. On July 27, 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied plaintiff's naturalization application because he had registered to vote in the City of St. Louis, signing under penalty of perjury a voter's registration card certifying that he was a United States citizen.5 Decision dated July 27, 2001 [Doc. # 10-1 at 7-8]. INS stated that plaintiff's conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f), which proscribes making a false claim of U.S. citizenship in order to vote or register to do so. In addition, plaintiff gave false testimony under oath during his interview when he stated that he had never claimed to be aU.S. citizen. Under INS regulations, a naturalization applicant who gives false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit "will be found to lack good moral character." Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. Part 316.19(b)(vi)). Nonetheless, plaintiff was informed that the denial of his application was without prejudice to his ability to file a new application on or after October 18, 2005.
The subject of this lawsuit is plaintiff's second application, filed on September 18, 2015. [Doc. # 10-1 at 15-35]. He appeared for a naturalization interview on February 18, 2016, which was memorialized in a Record of Sworn Statement in Affidavit Form [Doc. # 10-1 at 11-12]. According to this document, plaintiff reported that he had again voted, this time in the 2008 presidential election. In addition, he stated that he had been charged with disturbing the peace and forcible rape, but that the charges had been dismissed. At a second interview on April 25, 2016, plaintiff stated that the last time he voted was in 2001, he had not voted in 2008, and that the prior sworn statement was incorrect. Apr. 25, 2016 Record of Sworn Statement in Affidavit Form [Doc. # 10-1 at 13-14].6 Plaintiff's insistence that he had not voted in 2008 is consistent with a February 2017 report from the St. Louis City Board of Election Commissioners. This report shows that plaintiff voted in a special election and a general municipal election in 1997, in the November general election in 2000, and in a primary election in March 2001. His voter registration was cancelled in January 2013. [Doc. # 1-7 at 4-7].
On April 18, 2018, nearly two years after his interview, plaintiff filed this complaint, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). He asks the Court to compel defendants to adjudicate his application for naturalization within 30 days. On May 25, 2018, DHS issued to plaintiff a notice to appear for removal proceedings in immigration court. [Doc. # 10-1]. The notice alleges that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6) because he voted on November 7, 2000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 611. Id. at 2, 4. The notice was served on plaintiff by mail. Id. at 4. A hearing has been set for May 22, 2019. [Doc. # 17-1].
The government moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. Under Rule 12(b)(1), the movant must successfully challenge the complaint "on its face or on the factual truthfulness of its averments." Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n. 6 (8th Cir. 1990)). In a facial attack, the court can only consider the "face of the pleadings, and the non-moving party receives the same protections as it would defending against a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6)." Disability Support All. v. Geller Family Ltd. P'ship III, 160 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1136 (D. Minn. 2016). By contrast, "in a factual attack, the court considers matters outside the pleadings, and the non-moving party does not have the benefit of 12(b)(6) safeguards." Id.
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff need not provide specific facts in support of his allegations. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam), but "must include sufficient factual information to provide the 'grounds' on which the claim rests, and to raise a right to relief abovea speculative level." Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3). The Court accepts as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, even if it appears that "actual proof of those facts is improbable" and reviews the complaint to determine whether its allegations show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56. "The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," however. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 () Finally, courts review the plausibility of a plaintiff's claim "as a whole, not the plausibility of each individual allegation," considering only the materials that are "necessarily embraced by the pleadings and exhibits attached to the complaint[.]" Whitney v. Guys, Inc., 700 F.3d 1118, 1128 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff seeks relief in this Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which provides a naturalization applicant with the right to file a petition for hearing in a federal court if USCIS fails to make a determination on a naturalization application within 120 days of completing the applicant's naturalization examination.7 Defendants argue that, once they placed plaintiff into removal proceedings, the Court was stripped of its jurisdiction under § 1447(b), by operation ofanother statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1429.8 Assuming that the Court retains jurisdiction, defendants further argue that the removal process forecloses the possibility of redress for plaintiff's claims and his complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff argues that, by its plain language, § 1429 applies only to the executive branch. Thus, he asserts, the Court's statutory grant of jurisdiction under § 1447(b) remains intact and the Court may consider his naturalization application, regardless of the pending removal proceedings. Alternatively, he argues, § 1429 does not apply because the removal proceedings were initiated by a notice to appear rather than "pursuant to a warrant of arrest." Finally, he contends that the government is estopped from using the 2000 voter fraud to bar his efforts to obtain naturalization from this Court.
Addressing the parties' arguments requires the Court to examine the interplay between two processes: naturalization and removal, and the changes in the statutes that govern them — § 1447(b) and § 1429. Dilone v. Nielsen, et al., No. PWG-18-1018, 2019 WL 418422, at *3 (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2019).
In the past, district courts had authority to naturalize, while the authority to deport aliens — now referred to as "removal" — was vested in the Attorney General.9 De Lara Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004). It was possible for naturalization and removalproceedings to advance simultaneously, Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229, 235 (2d Cir. 2008), and because "neither proceeding had priority over the other . . ., an alien could find himself in a race against the government, with the alien pressing the court to grant him citizenship before the government could order his removal from the country," Dilone, 2019 WL 418422, at *3 (citing Shomberg v. United States, 348 U.S. 540, 544 (1955)). In 1950, to end this race, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1429 to provide that "no petition for naturalization shall be finally heard by a naturalization court if there is pending against the petitioner a deportation proceeding." Bellajaro, 378 F.3d at 1045 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (1952) (emphasis added)). This "priority provision" ensures that deportation proceedings take precedence over an alien's attempts...
To continue reading
Request your trial