Plymate v. Johnson et al

Filing 10

ORDER Granting Defendants' 8 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/26/2017. (ag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

Case No.: 16cv2899-MMA (MDD)

ROSE ALICIA PLYMATE,

13
14
15

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff,
v.

[Doc. No. 8]

JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Rose Alicia Plymate (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants

19
20

John F. Kelly, Leon Rodriguez, and Melissa Maxim (collectively “Defendants”) on

21

November 28, 2016, seeking a declaration of U.S. citizenship pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

22

1503(a). See Complaint. Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack

23

of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Doc.

24

No. 8. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. The Court found the

25

matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to

26

Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Doc. No. 9. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

27

GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

28

///
-1-

16cv2899-MMA (MDD)

1
2

DISCUSSION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

3

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, “[a] federal court is presumed to lack

4

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West,

5

Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).

6

Without subject matter jurisdiction, a federal court is without “power” to hear or

7

adjudicate a claim. See Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969,

8

975 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89

9

(1998)); Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a party may seek

10

dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “either on the face of the

11

pleadings or by presenting extrinsic evidence.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.,

12

328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003); see also White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.

13

2000).

14

“Mootness can be characterized as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The

15

requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation

16

(standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes

17

v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

18

“Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case

19

that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists.” Foster v. Carson, 347

20

F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “If there is no

21

longer a possibility that an appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot and

22

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Ruvalcaba v. City of L.A., 167

23

F.3d 514, 521 (9th Cir. 1999)).

24

Here, Defendants assert that there is no controversy between the parties as to

25

Plaintiff’s citizenship. In order to bring a claim under Section 1503(a), a litigant must

26

allege that he or she has been denied a right or privilege as a national of the United

27

States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a). Thus, a dispute must exist as to Plaintiff’s citizenship in

28

order for her claim to proceed. Defendants contend that they “now agree that Plymate
-2-

16cv2899-MMA (MDD)

1

has established U.S. citizenship.” Doc. No. 8-1 at 3. This fact is evidenced by

2

Defendants’ approval of Plaintiff’s Form N-600, declaring Plaintiff a U.S. citizen. See

3

Doc. No. 8-2. Further, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to

4

dismiss. Thus, based on the record, the Court finds that no actual or live controversy

5

exists, and Plaintiff’s Complaint “must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Foster, 347

6

F.3d at 745.

7
8
9

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and
DISMISSES this action. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15
16

Dated: April 26, 2017
_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

16cv2899-MMA (MDD)