Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reeves v. Johnson

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Newark Vicinage

July 7, 2015

Michael Duke Reeves, Plaintiff,
v.
Jeh J. Johnson, in his official capacity as Sec. of DHS, et al. Defendants.

OPINION

STANLEY R. CHESLER, District Judge.

This action arose out of Plaintiff's submission to this Court of a combination habeas petition and civil rights complaint, seeking relief based on his arrest and detention pending immigration removal proceedings. See Opinion, Reeves v. Johnson, 15cv1962 (D.N.J. March 24, 2015). The Court instructed Plaintiff that he must file his habeas petition and civil rights complaint separately. (Id.)

Plaintiff then filed the instant civil rights complaint, alleging defendants "aggressively target[ed] black and hispanic aliens and aliens with convictions that occurred over 10, 20, 30, or more years ago, without any temporal limitation; and also, the unfair enrichment from unfairly destroying 100's of 1000's black and Hispanic families along with the future of many U.S. citizen children." (Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1.)[1] Plaintiff sued the following individuals in their official capacities: Jeh J. Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Christopher Shanahan, New York Field Office Director; and Oscar Aviles, Warden of Hudson County Jail.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the complaint, and dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint, if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; or (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e) (2) (B).

I. BACKGROUND

In summary, Plaintiff alleged the following, taken as true for purposes of this screening only.

... immigration authorities are in the business of aggressive racial profiling of black and Hispanics [sic] immigrants; and also the detention and removal of aliens because of convictions that occurred decades and decades earlier... this practice is being conducted in violation of due process, equal protection and discrimination against certain classes of aliens and more, which is violation of the constitution.

(Compl. at 2.) Nine out of ten immigrants who are detained or removed are either black or Hispanic. (Id.) Many immigrants are considered a danger to the community for convictions that took place decades ago. (Id.) DHS/ICE uses the false pretext of aliens presenting a danger to the public to unjustly enrich its employees and contractors, despite a memo from the Secretary[2] cautioning ICE to use prosecutorial discretion after addressing certain factors, including:

Extended length of time since the offense of conviction; length of time in the United States; Military Service; family or community ties in the United States; status as a victim, witness or plaintiff in a civil or criminal proceedings; or compelling humanitarian factors such as poor health, age, pregnancy, a young child, or a seriously ill relative.

(Id. at 4.)

The Secretary of Homeland Security "has put no real mechanism into place to see to it that his directives are being followed..." (Id. at 5.) "The plaintiff here, along with thousands of aliens, their families and U.S. citizen children, vehemently challenges DHS/ICE unfair enforcements and abuse of discretion by using the loophole in the hole to exploit families of loved ones who committed offenses decades ago." (Id. at 10.)

In support of this Court's jurisdiction over his claims, Plaintiff stated:

Here, in a situation where an action is continually targeting a special class or constitutionally unfair, questionable or just simply unreasonable in every respect, federal court needs to intervene because it present the only arena where this issue can be challenged. In the same way the court has taken actions in many other similar situations with other issues and when a law or statute was unfair or unreasonable, the same jurisdiction should be exercise[d] in the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.