Case: 16-12007 Date Filed: 12/15/2017 Page: 1 of 39 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-12007 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01352-ODE JACQUELINE STEVENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, JUAN OSUNA, Director, Executive Office of Immigration Review, in his official capacity, FRAN MOONEY, Assistant Director for the Office of Management Programs, Executive Office of Immigration Review in her individual and official capacity, MARYBETH KELLER, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Executive Office of Immigration Review, in her individual and official capacity, GARY SMITH, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Executive Office of Immigration Review, in his individual and official capacity, et al., Defendants - Appellees, Case: 16-12007 Date Filed: 12/15/2017 Page: 2 of 39 INSPECTOR DOE, Federal Protective Services, et al., Defendants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (December 15, 2017) Before JULIE CARNES and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, * District Judge. EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Jacqueline Stevens appeals the dismissal of claims she filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971). Briefly stated, Plaintiff contends that her constitutional rights were violated when she was denied access to hearings at the Atlanta Immigration Court. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. We affirm the district court’s decision. * Honorable Kathleen M. Williams, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 16-12007 Date Filed: 12/15/2017 Page: 3 of 39 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a journalist and a university professor of political science. Her area of study focuses on the due process rights of those persons involved in deportation proceedings and on the conduct of Immigration Judges within the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). 1 Before the occurrences underlying this civil action, Plaintiff had published criticisms of deportation proceedings in general and of Immigration Judge William Cassidy’s performance in particular. This civil action arises from two dates on which Plaintiff sought to attend immigration hearings at the Atlanta Immigration Court. 2 On 7 October 2009, 1 The EOIR is an agency that adjudicates immigration cases within the Department of Justice. Under authority delegated by the Attorney General, the EOIR is responsible for the interpretation and administration of federal immigration laws, and for conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/about- office (last visited 14 December 2017). 2 Plaintiff contends on appeal that the district court erred by failing to consider (that is, failing to write about) Judge Cassidy’s liability for cancelling hearings on 22 June 2009, 12-15 January 2010, and 15 April 2010. This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, about the supposed cancellation of hearings on these dates, Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains only one allegation: “Plaintiff was unable to observe deportation/removal hearings at the Immigration Court on June 22, 2009, January 12-15, 2010, and April 15, 2010, because ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals