Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00047/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 08:1101i Immigration &amp; Nationality Act (Definitions)

---

1

17CV0047 JMA (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMILIO LOZANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

REX TILLERSON, Secretary of State, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17CV0047 JMA (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS 

[ECF No. 10]

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss. (ECF 

No. 10.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, 

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1503 to seek a declaratory 

judgment that he is a United States citizen and is entitled to a United States

passport. Defendants seek dismissal of all defendants other than Rex Tillerson, 

Secretary of State, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the basis that section

1503 only allows Plaintiff to institute an action “against the head of such 

department or independent agency” that denies a right or privilege to a person 

claiming to be a national of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a). The Court 

finds the defendants other than Secretary Tillerson, namely the Under Secretary 

Case 3:17-cv-00047-JMA Document 24 Filed 02/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17CV0047 JMA (MDD)

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

for Management; Assistant Secretary of State of Consular Affairs; Managing 

Director, Passport Services Directorate; and United States of America are not 

proper parties, and hereby dismisses them from this action. 

Defendants also contend that to the extent Plaintiff asserts a separate 

claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, such claim should be dismissed

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the grounds these sections do not 

independently confer jurisdiction upon the Court absent some other statutory 

basis. “Neither the Declaratory Judgment Act, § 2201, nor the ‘Further Relief’ 

statute, § 2202, confer jurisdiction on [a federal court] but, rather, provide 

additional remedies where jurisdiction independently already exists.” Harris v. 

United States, 820 F. Supp. 1018, 1021 n.2 (N.D. Miss. 1992) (citations omitted). 

Because the remedy Plaintiff seeks is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1503, any 

standalone claim for relief under sections 2201-2202 is unnecessary and 

dismissed as redundant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00047-JMA Document 24 Filed 02/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2