1

ALD

- 135 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10

- 4498

___________

RICHARD ROCHE

, Appellant

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________
On Appeal fr om the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. C ivil No. 10

- cv

- 04237 ) District Judge: Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal due to a Jurisdictional Defect

or S ummary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 10, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 21, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Richard Roc he appeals pro se fro m an order dismissing his filing titled “N otice of

Correction and Issuance of C ertificate s

. ” Because no substantial question is presented by2

this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR

27.4; I.O.P 10.6.

Richard Roche, Abdiel Fermin Avila, and Felix Roche jointly filed a document in

District Court, requesting that their citizenship status be corrected 1 and that they each be

issued a certificate of naturalization.

T he District Court interpreted the pleading as cha llenging three separate

immigration and naturalization decisions and determined that each petitioner should file a

separate pleading. By o rder entered on October 19, 2010, the District Court construed

the pleading as a habeas petition filed solely by Rich ard Roche, terminated Avila and

Felix Roche as parties , and ordered that the Clerk open two separate civil matters for the

terminated parties. T he D istrict Court dismissed Richard Roche’s petition without

prejudice to his filing of an amended petition tha t clearly identified the particular

naturalization deter mination he wished to challenge, noting that district courts have

limited authority to review challenges to naturalization determinations. The District

Court ordered the Clerk to administratively clo se the file and stated that, if Richard

Roche did file an amended petition within 30 days , the District Court would reopen the

file and address the allegations set forth in the amended petition.

Richard Roche did not file an amended petition. Instead, he filed a notice of

rejection and correction, stating that he rejected the District Court’s memorandum

1 Attachments to the pleading include declaration s by Richard Roche and Avila renouncing their United States citizenship.3

opinion and order , which he interpreted as a contract. 2 Richard Roche then filed a notice

of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 3 and we exercise de novo

review over the District Court's order dismissing Roc he ’s initial pleading

. See Great W.

Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothchild LLP , 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 2007 )

.
The District Court properly dismissed Roche’s petition

. Because district courts

have limited jurisdiction over citizenship and nationality claims, s ee 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(5), and Richard Roche failed initially and refused to amend to clearly explain his

citizenship and naturalization claim s , the District Court was unabl e to determine whether

it had authority to act on Roche’s pleading. Accordingly, the District Court properly

dismissed t he petition without prejudice.

As no substantial question is presented in this appeal, we will affirm the District

Court’s order dismis sing Roche’ s petition

.

2 It appears from previous filings that Richard Roche is a part icipant in the sovereign citizen movement. See C.A. No. 10

- 4415. His response to the District Court’s order does not constitute a motion for reconsideration that would toll the time to appeal.

3 Although his initial pleading was dismissed without prejudice, Roche rejected the District Court’s opin ion and order, failed to file an amended pleading within 30 days of the District Court’s order, and filed a notice of appeal, thereby declaring his intention to stand on his initial pleading. See Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F. 2d 950, 951

- 52 (3d Cir. 1976).