United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
E. DOWDELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Daniel Urquiza, appearing through counsel, initiated this
action on January 16, 2018, by filing a “writ of
mandamus” (Doc. 3). By Order filed March 5, 2018 (Doc.
4), the Court directed Plaintiff to clarify the nature of his
action and identify the basis, if any, of this Court's
jurisdiction. In his written response (Doc. 5), Plaintiff
clarifies that this is a “civil action for declaratory
relief, ” and invokes this Court's jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. Construing
Plaintiff's “writ of mandamus” as a civil
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the
Court finds the “writ of mandamus” should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as
frivolous, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. As a result, the Court dismisses without
prejudice Plaintiff's “writ of mandamus.”
a citizen of Mexico, is currently detained in the David L.
Moss Criminal Justice Center (a.k.a., the Tulsa County Jail)
awaiting trial on criminal charges in Tulsa County District
Court, Case No. CF-2016-1988. Doc. 3 at 1, 3. Plaintiff
alleges he is a removable alien because he has been charged
with a criminal offense and he is subject to an immigration
“hold” issued by the United States Office of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
Id. at 3-4. He further alleges he “would
prefer to be deported back to Mexico, ” but he has not
been deported because Tulsa County District Attorney Steve
Kunzweiler “has yet to pass the veritable baton from
State to Federal.” Id. at 4-5.
filing his “writ of mandamus, ” Plaintiff filed
two related motions in Tulsa County District Court: (1) a
“motion for immediate deportation in accordance with
executive order, ” filed September 25, 2017, and (2) a
“motion to stay proceedings awaiting answer from USDC
to federal question, ” filed January 5, 2018.
See Doc. 3 at 4; see also The Oklahoma
State Courts Network (“OSCN”), State v.
Juarez, et al., No. CF-2016-1988, available at
http://www.oscn.net (last visited May 4, 2018). Both motions
are pending. Id.
support of his state-court motion for immediate deportation,
Plaintiff relied on language in an Executive Order issued on
January 25, 2017. Doc. 3 at 4; see Exec. Order No.
13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799, 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (hereafter,
“Executive Order”). The Executive Order
“declare[s] the policy of the executive branch”
as to enforcement of federal immigration law. 82 Fed. Reg. at
8799. The stated purpose of the Executive Order “is to
direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to
employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of
the United States.” Id., § 1. In relevant
part, the Executive Order provides that “[i]t is the
policy of the executive branch to:”
(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of
the United States, including the INA, against all removable
aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United
States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United
. . .
(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with
applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except
as mandated by law; [and]
(d) Ensure that a liens Ordered removed from the United
States a re promptly removed.
Id., § 2. The Executive Order also directs the
Secretary of Homeland Security to “prioritize for
removal those aliens described by the Congress in [certain
enumerated sections of the INA], as well as removable aliens
who: . . . (b) Have been charged with any criminal offense,
where such charge has not been resolved.” Id.
at 8800, § 5.
Court, Plaintiff relied on the same Executive Order to
support his “writ of mandamus.” See Doc.
3 at 3-5. Plaintiff asserted that the Executive Order,
particularly § 5(b), “requires deportable aliens
to be sent back to their home countries” and alleged
that he is “being unjustly detained in the U.S. against
the President's Executive Order.” Id. at
2. Plaintiff asked this Court “to issue an order so as
to provide clear direction due to the ostensible appearance
of an abuse of discretion by the local District Attorney who
seems to remain aloof to the President's authority in
and/or to an Executive Order as it pertains directly to the
civil liberties of the Plaintiff.” Id. at 1.
also asked this Court “to give rulings on the following
federal questions” I.) Should the Executive Order be
adhered to by the District Attorney? And if it should be
adhered to for reasons in addition ...