Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONCHRISTOPHER L. CRANE et al.,Plaintiffs,v.JANET NAPOLITANO,
in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security
,et al., Defendants.§§§§§§§§§§§§§Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-03247-OORDER 
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 24). The Court held a hearing on this matter on April 8, 2013, and ordered the parties to submit
1
additional briefing addressing the effect, if any, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and theCivil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”) on the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
See
 ElectronicMinute Entry, Apr. 8, 2013; Mem. Op. & Order 37, Apr. 23, 2013, ECF No. 58. The partiescomplied with the Court’s request.Accordingly, now before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Amended Supplemental Brief in Supportof Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 63), Defendants’ Response toPlaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum on the CSRA (ECF No. 67), and Plaintiffs’ SupplementalReply Brief Regarding the CSRA (ECF No. 71). Also before the Court are Defendants’Supplemental Memorandum on Why the CSRA Precludes Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief (ECF No.60), Plaintiffs’ Responsive Supplemental Brief Regarding the CSRA (ECF No. 68), and Defendants’ 
“Plaintiffs” throughout this Order refers to the ICE agent plaintiffs.
1
Case 3:12-cv-03247-O Document 75 Filed 07/31/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1323
 
Reply to Plaintiffs’ Responsive Supplemental Brief Regarding the CSRA (ECF No. 70). After considering the foregoing the Court concludes as follows:
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court set forth the factual and procedural background of this case in detail in itsMemorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion toDismiss and its Memorandum Opinion and Order deferring ruling on Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary Injunction.
See
 Mem. Op. & Order 1–4, Jan. 24, 2013, ECF No. 41; Mem. Op. & Order 2–5, Apr. 23, 2013, ECF No. 58. In its previous Order, the Court found that Congress’s use of theword “shall” in Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act imposes a mandatoryobligation on immigration officers to initiate removal proceedings against aliens they encounter whoare not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Mem. Op. & Order 15–22, Apr. 23,2013, ECF No. 58;
 see
 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A);
 see also In re: Application of USA for Historical Cell Site Data
, No. 11-20884, slip op. at 10–11 (5th Cir. July 30, 2013) (finding that the word “shall”in Section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act imposes a mandatory duty on courts to issuean order for disclosure when certain prerequisites are satisfied). Therefore, the Court concluded thatPlaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Department of HomelandSecurity has implemented a program contrary to congressional mandate. However, the Court findsthat Congress has precluded Plaintiffs from pursuing their claims in this Court by enacting theCSRA. Therefore, the Court finds that this case should be and is hereby
DISMISSED withoutprejudice
 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs contend that the Court retains jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear Plaintiffs’2
Case 3:12-cv-03247-O Document 75 Filed 07/31/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID 1324
 
Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory Judgment Act claims because the threatened three-day suspension of Plaintiff James Doebler is outside the scope of the CSRA’s remedial scheme. Pls.’ Am. Supplemental Br. Supp. Appl. Prelim. Inj. 1–4, ECF No. 63; Pls.’ Supplemental Reply Br.8–9, ECF No. 71. Plaintiffs also contend that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks jurisdictionto hear Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs have yet to suffer an adverse action within the scope of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s jurisdiction, and the CSRA does not extend to cases involving potential future adverse actions. Pls.’ Responsive Supplemental Br. Regarding CSRA 1–2, 7, ECF No. 68. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend the Merit Systems Protection Board does not have theauthority to issue an injunction against an allegedly unconstitutional and unlawful policy.
 Id.
 at 2–5. Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims because they are employment disputes and the CSRA provides a comprehensive and exclusivescheme for resolving employment disputes brought by federal employees against the federalgovernment. Defs.’ Supplemental Mem. on CSRA 2–11, ECF No. 60. Defendants further contendthat Plaintiffs’ asserted claims are within the scope of the CSRA’s exclusive and comprehensiveadministrative and judicial remedies; therefore, Plaintiffs are bound to follow the procedures setforth in the CSRA and this Court lacks jurisdiction.
See
Defs.’ Supplemental Mem. on CSRA10–11, ECF No. 60; Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Supplemental Br. 7–8, ECF No. 67; Defs.’ Reply RegardingCSRA 1–3, 7–8, ECF No. 70. The Court finds that the CSRA precludes review of Plaintiffs’ claimsin this Court.Congress enacted the CSRA as “a comprehensive system for reviewing personnel actiontaken against federal employees.”
United States v. Fausto
, 484 U.S. 439, 455 (1988);
 see Bush v. Lucas
, 462 U.S. 367, 368, 388–90 (1983). The CSRA’s remedies are “the comprehensive and3
Case 3:12-cv-03247-O Document 75 Filed 07/31/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID 1325

Вознаградите свое любопытство

Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505