TERRAZA
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear challenges to an ICE detainer or removal proceedings due to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Plaintiff, a citizen of Guatemala, filed a pro se complaint against DHS, ICE, and the United States, seeking appointment of counsel and requesting to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 8 U.S.C. § 1252(G) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Diego de Paz Terraza's pro se complaint, filed on March 4, 2024. (Doc. 1). On March 7, 2024, he filed a motion for hearing and to appoint counsel. (Doc. 2). After reviewing the complaint, motion, court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff Diego de Paz Terraza, a citizen of Guatemala, files suit against the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and the United States of America. In his complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel as a victim of crime in Guatemala. In his motion (Doc. 2), Plaintiff requests that the Court hold a hearing, require that he be present at any removal proceedings against him, and for the appointment of counsel to assist him. The complaint does not include any factual allegations or causes of action, but the litigation appears to stem from the placement of an ICE detainer on Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Pinellas County jail on state law charges. [fn 1]
The Immigration and Nationality Act deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear any challenges to the detainer or removal proceedings. The statute specifically provides,
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1) Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2) The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and thereafter close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida this 13th day of March, 2024.
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: A review of the Pinellas County jail website reflects that Plaintiff was arrested for driving under the influence (property damage) and driving without a valid driver's license.