Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01766/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01766-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

 Pedroza did not file an objection to the R&R, which counts heavily against him, 1

especially considering that he has retained counsel. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

- 1 - 09cv1766

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIRO BRAVO PEDROZA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1766-LAB (AJB)

ORDER ADOPTING R&R

vs.

ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, DANIEL

BANDA, ROBERT C. BARRANCO,

N. ANTUNEZ, JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

Pedroza accuses the Defendants of malicious prosecution and violating his Fifth

Amendment rights for filing removal charges against him that the Ninth Circuit dismissed.

The Defendants moved to dismiss his complaint, and the Court referred their motion to

Magistrate Judge Gallo for a Report and Recommendation. Judge Gallo issued his R&R on

December 13, 2010, recommending that Pedroza’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

The Court ADOPTS that recommendation.

1

The central question here is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) divests the Court of

jurisdiction to consider Pedroza’s claims. The section, which “was aimed at preserving

prosecutorial discretion,” Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 236 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2001),

Case 3:09-cv-01766-LAB-WVG Document 24 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 09cv1766

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 commence

proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien.” Like the R&R,

the Court finds that Pedroza’s claims “arise[ ] from the type of discretionary decision

Congress intended to shield from suit.” (R&R at 10.) The R&R deftly handles Pedroza’s

counter-arguments, and the Court would add just one additional point. Pedroza conflates

the Defendants’ discretion to initiate removal proceedings with their ultimate success, under

the law, in doing so. Of course the Defendants have no discretion to violate res judicata.

But hindsight is 20/20, and it is a separate question entirely whether they have discretion to

attempt something that a court may subsequently find is barred by res judicata. 

 While section 1252(g) is sufficient to dispose of this case, the Court also agrees with

the R&R’s conclusion that Defendants are absolutely immune from suit and that Pedroza

fails to state a claim against Alberto Gonzalez. The Court ADOPTS the R&R and

DISMISSES Pedroza’s first amended complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01766-LAB-WVG Document 24 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 2