Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04435-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 460
Nature of Suit: Deportation
Cause of Action: Review of denial of an application for naturalization

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed: January 6, 2014* 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

GILBERTO FIERROS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

IMMIGRATION AND 

NATURALIZATION DIRECTOR, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C13-04435 HRL 

ORDER THAT CASE BE 

REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT 

COURT JUDGE 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

[RE: Docket Nos. 1 and 2] 

Gilberto Fierros sues Immigration and Naturalization Director for wrongful deportation. 

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. A court may 

authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the court is satisfied that 

the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C § 

1915(a)(1). In evaluating such an application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based 

on the plaintiff’s financial resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss 

the complaint.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s 

application indicates that his assets and income are insufficient to enable him to prosecute this 

action. Accordingly, his application to proceed without the payment of the filing fee should be 

granted. 

However, the Court’s grant of Plaintiff’s IFP application does not mean that he may continue 

to prosecute his complaint. A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee 

whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 

Case 5:13-cv-04435-RMW Document 5 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 4
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). “A pleading that states a claim for relief must 

contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . [and] (2) a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Additionally, if the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it 

must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Plaintiff alleges that he was an American citizen who was deported to Mexico after 

wrongfully being sent to prison. He intended to appeal the sentence, but he inadvertently waived his 

right to appeal after signing a document he did not understand due to the fact that he speaks little 

English. He requests that he be granted his citizenship again and that he be brought back from 

Mexico. 

Plaintiff does not provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s 

jurisdiction, and from the few facts pled it does not appear that the Court in fact has jurisdiction. In 

requesting that the Court remedy his wrongful deportation, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking 

judicial review of an order of removal. However, the “REAL ID Act eliminated district court 

habeas corpus jurisdiction over orders of removal, vesting jurisdiction exclusively in the courts of 

appeals.” Morales-Izquierdo v. DHS, 600 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). See 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(a)(5) (providing that, with limited exceptions, “a petition for review filed with an appropriate 

court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of 

removal”). Review by a court of appeals is further limited where the removal was based, as here, on 

a criminal conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (prohibiting judicial review where removal 

based on conviction of, among others, a crime involving moral turpitude). Moreover, section 

1252(g) provides that “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 . . . execute removal orders 

against any alien.” Insofar as Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful deportation is a request for judicial 

review of an order of removal or of the Attorney General’s execution of the order, this Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s complaint raises any other 

Case 5:13-cv-04435-RMW Document 5 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 4
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

claim for relief over which this Court might have subject jurisdiction, Plaintiff still fails to state a 

claim on which relief can be granted. 

Because all parties have not yet consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district court judge. The undersigned 

further RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned district court judge dismiss the complaint. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), any party may serve and file objections to this 

Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2014 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-04435-RMW Document 5 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 4
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C13-04355 HRL Notice will be mailed to: 

Gilberto Fierros 

C/O Christopher James Castillo 

1850 Copper Loop #11-11655 

Las Cruces, NM 88005 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:13-cv-04435-RMW Document 5 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 4