Ramos-Ruiz v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

— 1 — 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — 4 Gonzalo Ramos-Ruiz, Case No. 2:25-cv-00825-CDS-NJK 5 Petitioner Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus 6 v. [ECF No. 5] 7 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), et al., — 8 — Respondents — 9 — 10 On June 30, 2025, pro se petitioner Gonzalo Ramos-Ruiz filed a writ of mandamus.1 11 Writ, ECF No. 5. Liberally construing the filing, Ramos-Ruiz moves this court to order or 12 compel defendants2 to initiate a criminal investigation into Maria Louisa Sanchez-Plata, a 13 woman to whom he was previously married; their union has since been voided because of a state 14 court finding of bigamy. Id. at 4–7; 9–10. For the reasons set forth herein, the petition for writ of 15 mandamus is denied. 16 I. Discussion 17 Federal court jurisdiction is limited to “cases” or “controversies” under Article III of the 18 United States Constitution. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992). For a case or 19 controversy to exist, Ramos-Ruiz must have suffered an “injury in fact”: an invasion of a legally 20 protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent, not 21 ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. at 560 . Further, there must be a “causal connection between 22 the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be ‘fairly . . . trace[able] to the 23 challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the result [of] the independent action of some — 24 — 25 1 The court liberally construes this filing as a petition for writ of mandamus. 2 The named defendants are the directors of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 26 (USCIS), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General of the United States, Pamela Bondi, and the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, Sigal Chattah. See ECF No. 5. 1 third party not before the Court.’” Id. (citing Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 , 41–42 2 (1976)). Last, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative” that the injury will be 3 “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 560–61 (internal citations omitted). It does not appear 4 from the petition that Ramos-Ruiz has suffered an “injury in fact.” Rather, Ramos-Ruiz wants 5 the defendants to investigate Sanchez-Plata, seeking their assistance in proving the alleged 6 “marriage fraud” to help him resolve what appears to be a dispute of division of property. See 7 ECF No. 5 at 7, ¶ 20; id. at 10, ¶ 26. But this is not an injury. Even if an investigation took place 8 and it was determined that marriage fraud took place, that would not give rise to an injury as the 9 fraud is traceable to Sanchez-Plata, not the defendants. And any determination of marriage fraud 10 would not guarantee resolution of the property dispute between Ramos-Ruiz and Sanchez11 Plata. Without standing, this court lacks jurisdiction over this action, so it must be dismissed. 12 Further, even if Ramos-Ruiz could demonstrate an injury-in-fact, mandamus relief is not 13 available here. The United States Supreme Court has long held that mandamus relief is “a drastic 14 and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 15 U.S. 367 , 380 (2004) (quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258 , 259–60 (1947)) (internal quotation 16 marks omitted). Ramos-Ruiz does not demonstrate that this case is one deserving of the drastic 17 and extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. Ramos-Ruiz asks that the defendants be ordered 18 to investigation Sanchez-Plata for violations of Title 8, United States Code, Sections 1154 and 19 1325, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1546 . ECF No. 5 at 9–10. But mandamus is not 20 available to obtain the relief Ramos-Ruiz requests because under federal law, this court lacks 21 the power to compel a federal criminal investigation at the request of a citizen plaintiff. See, e.g., 22 Ardalan v. McHugh, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106984 , at *12 n.4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014); Leisure v. FBI 23 of Columbus, Ohio, 2 F. App’x 488, 490 (6th Cir. 2001); see also City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe, 546 F.2d 24 693, 701 (7th Cir. 1976); Moses v. Katzenbach, 342 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1965) Indeed, the criminal 25 investigation or prosecution of individuals is a discretionary function that rests with the 26 government and may not be compelled. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (“In our 1|| criminal justice system, the Government retains ‘broad discretion’ as to whom to prosecute.”); 2|| Asanov v. Plekan, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41174 , at *4 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2024). Consequently, this 3|| action cannot proceed. Accordingly, the court dismisses Ramos-Ruiz’s petition for writ of 4| mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. IL. Conclusion 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ramos-Ruiz’s petition for writ of mandamus [ECF No. 7|| 5] is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 8 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close es 9 Dated: July 30,2025 Lf — 10 — Cristina 2). Silv Il Uni tates District Judge 12 / — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — 6||° Even if this court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, this case would be dismissed for the reasons set forth in this order.