Tosin Adegbuji v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Appeal From the United States District Court For the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4141
________________
TOSIN ADEGBUJI,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-02619)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 23, 2007
Before: Rendell, Garth and Cowen, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 11, 2007 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Tosin Adegbuji appeals the District Court’s order granting appellee’s motion to

-- 1 of 3 --

dismiss. The procedural history of this case and the details of appellant’s claims are well-
known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s opinions, and need not be discussed
at length. Adegbuji filed a complaint alleging several claims under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA). By order entered March 2, 2005, the District Court dismissed his
claims of abuse of process, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and prolonged
detention for failure to state a claim. The government filed a motion to dismiss the
remaining claims of assault, battery, and excessive force for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction because Adegbuji failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The District
Court granted the motion to dismiss, and Adegbuji filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, Adegbuji challenges his removal proceedings as well as his detention
during them. He argues that the government maliciously prosecuted him, falsely
imprisoned him, and abused a legitimate process. He also contends that the District Court
erred in dismissing his claims of assault and battery.
This Court has addressed Adegbuji’s allegations concerning his removal
proceedings in prior opinions. In Adegubji v. INS, C.A. No. 03-2848, we noted that
“[b]ecause Adegbuji is inadmissible for having committed a crime involving moral
turpitude, detention while he was in removal proceedings was mandatory under §
236(c)(1)(A).” In Adegbuji v. Fifteen Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents,
C.A. No. 05-1506, we informed Adegbuji that Sections 1252(g) and 1252(a)(2)(A) of the
REAL ID Act bar judicial review of his claims for damages “arising out of the decision to
commence removal proceedings” or “arising from or relating to the implementation of or

-- 2 of 3 --

operation of an order of removal.” We also noted that we would decline to review claims
challenging his removal because Adegbuji has raised them in a Petition for Review that is
currently pending in this Court. See Adegbuji v. Atty. Gen., C.A. No. 05- 3894. We will
not review these claims here for the same reasons.
We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of Adegbuji’s
claims of assault, battery, and excessive force for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Gould Electronics Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). We agree with
the District Court that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims because Adegbuji failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
affirm the District Court’s judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --