Smith v. Holder et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 7/23/12. (JCH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID MICHAEL SMITH
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:11cv92 LG-JMR

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of
the United States; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services; and STACIA HYLTON, Director,
United States Marshal Service

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion to Dismiss [10] Plaintiff’s Complaint
for Writ of Mandamus filed by Defendants Eric B. Holder, Alejandro Mayorkis, and
Stacia Hylton. Plaintiff, David Michael Smith, responded to the Motion and
Defendants replied. The Plaintiff sought to compel the Defendants to grant his
application for a permanent resident card. After the Complaint was filed, the
Defendants granted Plaintiff’s application for a permanent resident card. The
Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s Complaint is now subject to dismissal because
the Defendants have provided all available relief to Smith, rendering his claims
moot.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, came to the United
States pursuant to an agreement with Scotland Yard. The United States
Government agreed, on the condition that Plaintiff would cooperate with particular
investigations and testify openly and honestly in court, to provide Plaintiff with

certain benefits, including the dismissal of Plaintiff’s outstanding warrant of arrest.
The cooperation agreement includes a temporary stay of Plaintiff’s pending
deportation proceedings for as long as necessary to maintain the safety of Plaintiff,
and the Government’s promise to help Plaintiff establish resident alien status in
“another foreign country.”
Plaintiff successfully testified in open court on behalf of the United States
and entered the United States Marshals’ witness protection program. Because of
his cooperation, Plaintiff received permanent residency in the United States and the
appropriate work authorization. Permanent residency status requires periodic
renewal.
Plaintiff, no longer fearing an imminent threat on his life, left the witness
protection program in 1997. In 2008, Plaintiff sought to renew his United States
permanent residency (Form I-551, or “green card”). United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Plaintiff’s renewal application. Plaintiff
filed this lawsuit in response, asserting that Defendants willfully and unreasonably
delayed and refused to provide work authorization, constituting a violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. 555(b), 701 et. seq. Plaintiff also asserts
that Defendants failed to carry out the adjudicative functions delegated to them by
law. Plaintiff seeks an order enforcing the original cooperation agreement made
with the Department of Justice, an order requiring Defendants to provide
permanent resident status and work authorization, and Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees
and costs of the litigation pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §
-2-

2412(d)(1)(A).
DISCUSSION
Defendants assert that this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff has
received his new Form I-551 Permanent Resident card, rendering Plaintiff’s
permanent residency renewal claims moot. Plaintiff’s Form I-551 is evidence of
lawful permanent resident status and provides authorization to work in the United
States. Consequently, Plaintiff has obtained the objective of this lawsuit, and all
that he would have obtained had the Defendants acted on his application in a more
timely manner.
A federal court has no authority “to give opinions upon moot questions or
abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
matter in issue in the case before it.” Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895). See
also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S.
244, 246 (1971). Furthermore, it is well established that “federal courts are without
power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before
them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S. Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413
(1971). After filing this lawsuit demanding that Defendants resolve Plaintiff’s
status pursuant to the original cooperation agreement, Plaintiff filed a new Form I90, requesting renewal of his permanent residency status. The USCIS granted that
application. Plaintiff’s status has been resolved, and the Court has no authority to
further affect the rights of the litigants. Plaintiff’s claims are now moot, and

-3-

beyond the reach of the Court.1 They will be dismissed with prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).
Plaintiff also asserts his entitlement to attorneys fees under the Equal Access
to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). However, an “interest in attorneys' fees . .
. is insufficient to create an Article III case or controversy where none exists on the
merits of the underlying claim.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 480
(1990) (citing Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 70-71 (1986)); Vivian Tankships
Corp. v. Louisiana, 254 F.3d 1080 (table), 2001 WL 563773, at *3 (5th Cir. 2001)
(attorneys' fees are considered “sunk costs” and do not create a legally cognizable
dispute that will save an action from the operation of the mootness doctrine). Since
the Form I-551 has been issued in this case, the underlying action is moot, and
Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys' fees is insufficient to maintain a justiciable case or
controversy.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to
Dismiss [10] filed by Defendants Eric B. Holder, Alejandro Mayorkis, and Stacia
Hylton is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT

1

Plaintiff argues in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss that part of the
relief he seeks is lawfully-issued documentation facilitating future renewals of his
permanent resident status. This claim does not appear in the Complaint.
Furthermore, the cooperation agreement does not evince any intent by the
Government to provide Plaintiff with permanent residency and work authorization
in the United States, or in any way guarantee Plaintiff the right to remain
permanently within the United States as a citizen. Therefore, even if Plaintiff had
made this claim in his Complaint, the Court would have no basis for ordering the
Defendants to provide written assurance of future renewal of Plaintiff’s Form I-551.
-4-

PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 23rd day of July, 2012.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-