UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FERNANDO FONTANEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-cv-02073 (RC) ) ) DAVID H. BERGER, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Fontanez’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion for Permanent Injunction (“MPI”), ECF No. 6, and the Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunction and Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”), ECF No. 17, and Memorandum in Support 1 (“MTD Mem.”), ECF No. 17-1, filed by Defendant General David H. Berger, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps (“the Commandant”). For the reasons explained herein, the Commandant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunction will be denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff served as a member of the United States Marine Corps in the 1980’s. See Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1 at 1; see also MTD Mem at Declaration of Bradley J. Goode 1 The Commandant filed an identical duplicate of this Memorandum at ECF No. 18. 1 (“Goode Decl.”), Deputy Director of the Board for Correction of Naval 2 Records 3 (“the BCNR”), ECF No. 17-2, ¶ 2. He initially applied to the BCNR for administrative review in March 2013. Goode Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff requested that the BCNR upgrade his military discharge from “Other than Honorable,” after his separation from the Marine Corps in 1986. Id. (citing BCNR Docket No. 3159-13); see MPI Exhibits (“MPI Exs.”), ECF No. 6-1, at 7. 4 The BCNR reviewed Plaintiff’s application, and in March 2014, concluded that it did not contain sufficient evidence of probable material error or injustice and declined to grant any relief. Goode Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of that determination by letters dated June 3, 5, and 11, 2014. Id. ¶ 4. On June 17, 2014, the BCNR concluded that Plaintiff had not presented new and material evidence and declined to reconsider the decision. Id. He again sought reconsideration, by letter, on June 23, 2014. Id. ¶ 5. The BCNR again concluded that Plaintiff had not presented new and material evidence and declined to reconsider the decision on July 31, 2014. Id. Plaintiff 2 “The Marine Corps is within the Department of the Navy[,]” Neal v. Secretary of Navy and Commandant of Marine Corps, 639 F.2d 1029, 1033 n.4 (3rd Cir. 1981) (citing 10 U.S.C. § 5011), and “[u]nder the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps shall exercise supervision over . . . the Marine Corps.[,]” id. (citing10 U.S.C.§ 5201(d)). 3 Courts may take judicial notice of administrative documents and agency actions, which are generally of public record, without converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, see Vasser v. McDonald, 228 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9–12 (D.D.C. 2016) (collecting cases), particularly where those documents are “central to the plaintiff's claim[,]” Slate v. Pub. Defender Serv. for the Dist. of Columbia, 31 F. Supp. 3d 277, 287–88 (D.D.C. 2014), appeal dismissed, No. 14-7064 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014). If …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals