19-2668 Gjidija v. United States of America UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________ Naim Gjidija, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 19-2668 United States of America, Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting United States Attorney General, Warden in Charge of USP McCreary, Secretary of the DHS, Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Director of DHS, Defendants-Appellees, John Doe, 1-4, Defendants.* ___________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: NAIM GJIDIJA, pro se, Bronx, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: JENNIFER C. SIMON (Benjamin H. Torrance, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Audrey Strauss, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Naim Gjidija, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 1 In a complaint he filed through counsel, Gjidija brought this action against the United States, as well as several federal agencies and individuals. He raised claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), arising out of his immigration detention. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) commenced removal proceedings against Gjidija in 2003 based on his 2001 conviction for possession of marijuana. The removal proceedings did * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to conform to the above. 1 Gjidija also moves in this Court for leave to supplement his appendix. We deny that motion because Gjidija has not shown that the proffered news article was “omitted from” the record “by error or accident,” or that it is “material” to this appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2). 2 not advance because Gjidija was arrested and indicted for his role in an armed robbery crew. See Gjidija v. United States, No. 06-cv-4903 (JFK), 2007 WL 2049727, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2007). In connection with that indictment, Gjidija pleaded ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals