United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a motion for “Emergency Injunction Stay of
Removal and for Verification of Fingerprint Alienage”
filed by pro se Petitioner Vaughn Johnson
(“Johnson”) (#A096335944), which was transferred
to this Court from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. (Doc. 33). At the time of
filing, Johnson was an immigration detainee in the custody of
the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”) incarcerated at
the Monroe County Sheriff Detention Center in Key West,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Johnson's removal
order or enjoin his removal from the United States, his
Motion (Doc. 1) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT
was convicted in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida of making a false statement on a
passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542.
See Johnson v. Immigration & Customs Enf't,
13-cv-080, 2014 WL 1912355 (S.D. Ga. May 12, 2014). Johnson
was sentenced to 20 months of imprisonment. Johnson was also
convicted in the United States Virgin Islands of wire fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Johnson was sentenced
to 30 months of imprisonment. Id. At the time of
filing, Johnson alleged that he faced imminent removal from
the United States of America. (Doc. 1). Johnson has since
been removed. (Doc. 38, p. 1).
challenges the legitimacy of the order to remove him from the
United States. (Doc. 1). Johnson disputes various DHS/ICE
records that were relied upon to determine that he is
removable and establishing his identity. (Doc. 1). Johnson
asks that this Court ascertain his “true
identity” to prove he is a United States citizen and
order Respondents to refrain from removing him from the
United States. (Doc. 1).
has previously raised similar allegations in petitions for
writs of habeas corpus and “numerous motions seeking
various forms of relief.” Johnson v. Immigration
& Customs Enf't, 5:13-cv-080, 2014 WL 1912355,
*1 (S.D. Ga. May 12, 2014) (dismissing petition and denying
“miscellaneous motions”); see also Johnson v.
Attorney Gen. of United States, 2:17-cv-0422, 2017 WL
4343083 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2017) (denying petition, motions
to amend, and emergency motions); Johnson v. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, 6:17-cv-1911, M.D. Fla.
(denying Emergency Motion for U.S. True Identity, Nationality
and Biometric Official Verification Evidentiary Hearing and
for Equal Protection); Johnson v. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 6:15-cv-1102, M.D. Fla. (denying petition
and terminating five miscellaneous motions).
Law and Analysis
motion seeks an order to stay his removal and analyze his
fingerprints. “Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute....” Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(citations omitted). The burden of establishing a federal
court's jurisdiction rests upon the party that invokes
jurisdiction. See Hartford Ins. Group v. Lou-Con
Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
Accordingly, Johnson must prove that jurisdiction exists.
See Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507,
511 (5th Cir. 1980).
passage of the REAL ID Act divested district courts of
jurisdiction over removal orders and designated the courts of
appeals as the sole forums for such challenges via petitions
for review.” Moreira v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 709,
712 (5th Cir. 2007). The Fifth Circuit has further held that
the prohibition strips district courts of the jurisdiction to
consider requests for a stay of removal proceedings.
Idokogi v. Ashcroft, 66 Fed.Appx. 526 (5th Cir.
2003) (per curiam) (“The district court therefore
correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to stay the
order of removal.”); Fabuluje v. Immigration &
Naturalization Agency, 244 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 2000) (per
curiam) (“[T]he district court correctly determined
that it was without jurisdiction to consider Fabuluje's
request for a stay….”). Therefore, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to review the validity of Johnson's
order of removal, or to enjoin ICE from removing Johnson from
the United States. Moreover, Johnson has already been
removed, so his request is moot.
of the numerous pleadings filed by Johnson, Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), is mentioned. (Doc. 29). In Bivens,
the Supreme Court recognized that certain circumstances may
give rise to a private cause of action against federal
officials that is comparable to the statutory cause of action
permitted against state officials by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
As this Court has previously stated (1:18-1427), Johnson has
not shown that Bivens provides a remedy in his case.
See De La Paz v. Coy, 786 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2015)
(plaintiffs cannot pursue Bivens suits against
agents for allegedly illegal conduct during investigation,
detention, and removal proceedings). The Supreme Court has
explained that federal courts may not step in to create a
Bivens cause of action if “any alternative,
existing process for protecting the interest amounts to a
convincing reason for the Judicial Branch to refrain from
providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages.”
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 550 (2007). Because
Johnson provides no authority to support a claim under
Bivens, any such claim should be dismissed. See
Adegbuji v. Fifteen Immigration & Customs Enf't
Agents, 169 Fed.Appx. 733, 735 (3d Cir. 2006) (REAL ID
Act barred judicial review of plaintiff's Bivens
claim); Guardado v. United States, 744 F.Supp.2d 482
(E.D. Va. 2010) (court lacked jurisdiction over
Bivens case based on REAL ID Act).
this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Johnson's removal
order or to enjoin ICE from removing him, IT IS RECOMMENDED
that Johnson's Motion (Doc. 1) be ...