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)

Download PDF
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)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?