Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01798/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01798-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cesar A. Quinones Madera
Plaintiff
United States Department of State
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR A. QUINONES MADERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT 

PREPAYMENT OF FEES

(ECF Nos. 1, 4)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Cesar A. Quinones Madera (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action against the 

United States Department of State due to the failure to return his birth certificate after he applied 

for a passport. Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in this action 

without prepayment of fees. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court 

determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 

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

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 8
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

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); 

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis

proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 

F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court exercises its discretion to 

screen the plaintiff’s complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 

fails to state a claim on 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).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same 

pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a 

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

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007)). 

In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 

accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 

94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, 

a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court 

may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous when the facts alleged lack an arguable basis in law or 

in fact or embraces fanciful factual allegations. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Further, a claim can be dismissed where a complete defense is obvious on the face of the 

complaint. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 8
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

3

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

The Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 

the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

On November 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed for a new passport at the Lamont Postal Service. 

(Compl. 7,1 ECF No. 1.) On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter denying his 

application for a passport because his birth certificate did not comply with the laws of Puerto

Rico. (Id.) The letter provided that Plaintiff could submit a correct birth certificate within 90 

days. (Id.) Plaintiff immediately requested a correct birth certificate but did not receive it until 

March 1, 2019. (Id.)

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff contacted the State Department and was informed that he 

could still mail in his new birth certificate even though the ninety-day deadline had passed. (Id.) 

Plaintiff was concerned so he mailed the birth certificate by certified mail. (Id.) The birth 

certificate was received on March 19, 2019. (Id.) 

Plaintiff did not receive his passport nor was his birth certificate returned to him. (Id.) 

He has mailed several requests to have his birth certificate returned to him and has received 

correspondence that his passport has been denied. (Id.) On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff 

travelled to Tucson, Arizona to request a copy of all his documentation. (Id.) He was informed 

that they had no record of his documents. (Id.) When he returned home, he contacted the 

Department of State in Virginia and was told that Tucson did have his documents under a 

different number that is still in process. (Id.) Plaintiff requested that his passport request be 

cancelled and he was informed that a cancellation is in process. (Id.) 

Plaintiff brings this action seeking the return of his documents and the $810.00 that he 

spent in attempting to obtain his passport. 

///

///

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 8
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

4

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings this action against the United States Department of State. Generally, the 

United States and its agencies are entitled to sovereign immunity from suit unless Congress has 

expressly waived immunity. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); Kaiser v. Blue Cross 

of California, 347 F.3d 1107, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003); Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 

1997). “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. Indeed, the ‘terms of [the United 

States’] consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” 

Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475 (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)). “Any 

waiver of immunity must be ‘unequivocally expressed,’ and any limitations and conditions upon 

the waiver ‘must be strictly observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.’ ” Hodge, 

107 F.3d at 707 (quoting Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160-61 (1981).) Plaintiff does not 

set forth the basis for his claims in this matter, so the Court considers whether Plaintiff can 

proceed against the United States based on the allegations in the complaint.2

A. Administrative Procedure Act

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), “final agency action for which there is 

no other adequate remedy in a court [is] subject to judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. The

passport regulations provide that the “Department will send notice in writing to any person 

whose application for issuance of a passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad has been 

denied” setting “forth the specific reasons for the denial. . . and, if applicable, the procedures for 

review available. . . .” 22 C.F.R. § 51.65(a). A person who has had a passport denied may 

request a hearing to review the basis of the denial if a written request is submitted within sixty 

 

2 The Court notes that decisions to revoke or deny a passport are also considered under 8 U.S.C. § 1503 which 

provides that any person within the United States who “claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States 

and is denied such right or privilege by any department or independent agency, or official thereof, upon the ground 

that he is not a national of the United States,” may bring an action “against the head of such department or 

independent agency for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States. . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a). 

However, this action does not allege facts to implicate the protections of section 1503. Although Plaintiff’s initial 

application was denied, it was due to Plaintiff not submitting a corrected birth certificate, not because he was found 

not to be a national of the United States. See Saleh v. Pompeo, 393 F.Supp.3d 172, 180 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (a denial 

based upon failure to produce sufficient evidence proving citizenship is not a denial based on a finding of noncitizenship which is required to bring an action under section 1503).

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 8
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

5

days of the receipt of the denial. 22 C.F.R. § 51.70(a). 

After reviewing the record of the hearing and the preliminary findings of fact and 

recommendations of the hearing officer, and considering legal and policy 

considerations he or she deems relevant, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Passport Services, or his or her designee, will decide whether to uphold the denial 

or revocation of the passport or cancellation of the Consular Report of Birth 

Abroad. The Department will promptly notify the person requesting the hearing 

of the decision in writing. If the decision is to uphold the denial, revocation, or 

cancellation, the notice will contain the reason(s) for the decision. The decision is 

final and is not subject to further administrative review.

22 C.F.R. § 51.74. 

“Only final agency decisions are subject to review under the APA.” Pac. Coast Fed’n of 

Fishermen’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Here, it is clear from Plaintiff’s complaint that there has been no final determination of his 

passport application. Two conditions must be met for an administrative action to be considered 

final under the APA: “(1) the action should mark the consummation of the agency’s decision 

making process; and (2) the action should be one by which rights or obligations have been 

determined or from which legal consequences flow.” Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 192 

F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 1999). Although Plaintiff’s application was initially denied due to his 

birth certificate not comporting with Puerto Rican law, this was not a final decision. Rivera v. 

Albright, 76 F.Supp.2d 862, 864 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (a denial due to a request for documents that are 

not produced is not a final administrative decision). Plaintiff submitted a new birth certificate 

and his passport application was under review. Plaintiff cancelled his application because he 

wanted to receive his birth certificate back. Since there has been no final decision on Plaintiff’s 

passport application, Plaintiff cannot bring this action seeking review under the APA. 

B. Mandamus Act

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Department of State to return his documents 

submitted in support of his passport application. The Mandamus Act provides that district courts 

have original jurisdiction over “any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or 

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1361. “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is available to compel a federal 

official to perform a duty only if: (1) the individual’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the official’s 

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 5 of 8
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

6

duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and (3) 

no other adequate remedy is available.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003 

(quoting Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1998)). Even if all the elements of the 

mandamus test are satisfied, the trial court retains discretion in whether to order mandamus 

relief. Indep. Min. Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 505 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A writ of mandamus is intended to provide a plaintiff a remedy only where he has 

exhausted all other avenues of relief and only where the defendant owes the plaintiff a clear 

nondiscretionary duty. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Here, Plaintiff is seeking 

an order to have the Department of State return his birth certificate to him. In this instance, 

Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirements to obtain the extraordinary remedy of mandamus in this 

action. .

The regulations provide that the person applying for a passport must submit evidence of 

birth or naturalization in the United States. 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.42, 51.43, 51.44, 51.45. However, 

the regulations also provide that while generally the evidence submitted in connection with the 

passport application will be returned to the applicant, “[t]he Department may [ ] retain evidence 

when it deems it necessary for anti-fraud or law enforcement or other similar purposes.” 22 

C.F.R. § 51.46. Therefore, there is no mandatory non-discretionary duty and the officer retains 

the discretion on whether or not to return the documents to the applicant. 

Further, in the letter addressing Plaintiff’s inquiry about non-receipt of his birth 

certificate, Plaintiff was advised that his birth certificate had been returned and he was provided 

with information on how to request a refund for the cost of replacing his birth certificate. (ECF 

No. 1 at 20.) Plaintiff is able to receive a refund for the cost of obtaining his birth certificate by 

submitting a written request to the customer service department and enclosing his receipt from 

the office of vital statistics that issued the replacement certificate. (Id.) Plaintiff has another 

remedy if his birth certificate is not returned. 

Applying the governing principles of law, the Court concludes that Defendant does not

owe Plaintiff a clear nondiscretionary duty to return the documents submitted in support of his 

passport application and an adequate remedy for the failure to return his birth certificate. 

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Plaintiff cannot secure mandamus relief in this action. 

III.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in this action without prepayment of fees in this 

action. (ECF No. 4.) “A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset 

if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without 

merit.” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998); Tripati v. First Nat’l 

Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the “denial of leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion unless the district court first provides a plaintiff leave to 

amend the complaint or finds that amendment would be futile.” Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 

1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015); see Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. If a court denies a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis because the complaint is frivolous and cannot be cured by amendment, then 

the denial of the motion acts as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Rodriguez, 795 F.3d at 

1188.

In this instance, the Court finds that it would be futile to provide Plaintiff with leave to 

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff brings this action against the United States Department of 

State seeking monetary damages and return of documents submitted in support of his passport 

application. However, for the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to confer 

jurisdiction on this court nor is he entitled to receive the relief requested. Accordingly, the Court 

finds that this action should be dismissed without leave to amend, and Plaintiff’s application to 

proceed without prepayment of fees should be denied.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The complaint in this action be DISMISSED without leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees be DENIED.

This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

(14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings 

and recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01798-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 8 of 8