Ruiz
v.
El Paso Processing Ctr.

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAOct 23, 2018
Civil Action No. 18-2323 (UNA) (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2018)

Civil Action No. 18-2323 (UNA)

10-23-2018

MARTIN MORENO RUIZ, Plaintiff, v. EL PASO PROCESSING CENTER, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint.

If the plaintiff were serving a prison sentence at this time, he would be subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), and his application to proceed in forma pauperis likely would be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he has accumulated three "strikes." See Ruiz v. Fed. Gov't of Mexican Republic, 286 F. App'x 843 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing appeal as frivolous); Ruiz v. El Paso Processing Ctr., No. EP-07-CA-204, 2007 WL 2815577, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2007) (dismissing complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)), appeal dismissed as frivolous, 299 F. App'x 369, 371 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). It appears that the plaintiff is detained pending his removal to Mexico, see Compl. at 2, and the PLRA does not apply to immigration detainees, see Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1878 (2017); LaFontant v. INS, 135 F.3d 158, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1998). --------

According to the plaintiff, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit "erred in ruling in bad faith," Compl. at 3, when it denied him in forma pauperis status and dismissed his appeal as frivolous, see id., Ex. (Order, Ruiz v. El Paso Processing Center, No. 07-51268 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2008) (per curiam)). Even if the Fifth Circuit "failed to consider[] several issues raised in his original complaint," Compl. at 3, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the decision of any other federal court. See United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C 2011) (district courts "generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts") (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)). For this reason, the Court must dismiss the complaint. An Order is issued separately.

/s/_________


United States District Judge DATE: October 23, 2018