John McGill v. Attorney General United States

ALD-108 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-2219 ___________ JOHN MCGILL, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 2-15-cv-00031) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 25, 2018 Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 26, 2018) OPINION * PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. John McGill, a New Jersey state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 McGill filed a complaint pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against the Attorney General of the United States and the United States. McGill alleged that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied his application for a certificate of citizenship after he was unable to provide his birth certificate and other documents. McGill sought a declaratory judgment that he is a United States citizen and that he is entitled to a certificate of citizenship. He attached to his complaint the decisions he received from USCIS and incorporated them therein. The District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint, stating that McGill sought relief that was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. On appeal, we vacated the District Court’s order. Noting that the District Court had not provided legal reasoning for its ruling, we concluded that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of McGill’s complaint under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. McGill v. Att’y Gen., 623 F. App’x 49 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (non- precedential). 1 McGill’s motion to reopen his appeal and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. McGill must pay the full filing fee in installments. The Clerk shall issue an order addressing payment of the fee. 2 On remand, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendants asserted that McGill alleged that he is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States and that certificates of citizenship may only be granted to Americans who have derived or acquired citizenship through means other than birth in the United States. The defendants also moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and argued that the facts alleged in McGill’s complaint did not satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), which allows a declaratory judgment action where an agency denies a right on the ground that the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals