You're viewing Docket Item 5 from the case Gittens v. Holder et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-03020-CBA Document 5 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 70
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

I."~ CLERK'S OFFICE

BROOKLYN OFFICE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-cv-3020 (CBA)

i=lLED

* JUl 1 1 2013 *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------J(
RYAN O. GITTENS,

Petitioner,

- against-

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. Attorney General;
JANET NAPOLITANO, Department of
Homeland Security, USCIS District
Directors,

Respondents.

-----------------------------------------------------------J(
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:

Ryan O. Gittens, currently detained at Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia,

filed the present action on May 17, 2013. Gittens seeks mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1361 and requests that this Court compel the Attorney General to re-open and adjudicate nunc

pro tunc his previously filed naturalization application.

Gittens has filed two prior actions in this Court seeking the same relief. See Gittens v.

Holder, No. 10-CV-00849 (CBA) (LB), 2011 WL 3206911 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2011); Gittens v.

Holder, No. 12-CV-2363 (CBA), 2013 WL 839772 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2013). The Court

assumes familiarity with the facts and procedural developments recited therein and only those

relevant to the current petition are mentioned here. On February 8, 2013, the Board of

Immigration Appeals ("BIA") issued a final order of removal against Gittens. Gittens, 2013 WL

839772 at * 1.

1

Case 1:13-cv-03020-CBA Document 5 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 71

As this Court has repeatedly noted, a petition for review filed with the appropriate court

of appeals pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) is the exclusive means of review for Gittens's

nationality claim. I That Gittens has styled his claim for relief as a mandamus petition filed "in

conjunction with" his § 2241 habeas petition does not cure this jurisdictional defect. See, e.g.,

De Ping Wang v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 484 F.3d 615, 618 (2d Cir. 2007) (habeas corpus

unavailable as a separate means of obtaining judicial review of a final order of removal); Bhatt v.

Board oflmmigration Appeals, 328 F.3d 912,914-15 (7th Cir. 2003) (district court lacked

jurisdiction over mandamus action to compel BIA to reconsider its decision).

For the reasons stated above, Gittens's application is denied. The Clerk of Court is

directed to close the docket in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July ll, 2013

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Carol Bagl~~ Amo{tJ
Chief United States District Judge

/

I Gittens has filed a petition seeking review of the BIA's order, currently pending before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Ryan Omar Gittens v. U.S.
Attorney General, No. 13-10946-C (11th Cir. filed Mar. 6, 2013).

2

/S/ Chief Judge Carol B. Amon