Ogunji v. Kerry

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for the reasons stated in the attached written Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, mail a copy of the judgment and this Memorandum and Order to pla intiff pro se, and close the case.The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 8/25/2016. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
TEMITOPE A. OGUNJI,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-1208 (RRM) (LB)

- against JOHN F. KERRY, SECRETARY OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff pro se Temitope A. Ogunji brings this action against defendant John F. Kerry in
his official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, asking this Court to declare
the defendant’s delay in granting her passport application unlawful and to order the defendant to
grant her passport application immediately. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) Kerry now moves to dismiss
Ogunji’s complaint as moot because Ogunji’s passport application has been adjudicated. (Ltr.
Mot. to Dismiss as Moot (“Ltr. Mot.”) (Doc. No. 8).) For the reasons discussed below, Kerry’s
motion to dismiss as moot is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Ogunji is a United States citizen, born in Brooklyn, New York in 1973. (Compl. at ¶ 1.)
She has six children, three of whom were born in the United States, two of whom were born in
Nigeria, and one of whom she adopted. She does not allege where her adopted child was born.
(Id. at ¶ 8.) Her children are in Nigeria. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
On October 10, 2012, Ogunji applied for a passport at the Varick Street passport office in
New York City so that she could “unite with her children in Nigeria, render parental support and

conduct her international business.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) Ogunji “made several calls and visits to the
[Varick] Passport office for the issue of passport to no avail.” (Id. at ¶ 13.)
On March 7, 2013, Ogunji filed this action, seeking a declaration that Kerry’s delay in
issuing her passport was unlawful, (id. at ¶ a); to permanently enjoin Kerry from denying her
application for a passport, (id. at ¶ b); and affirmative relief ordering Kerry to grant her
application, (id. at ¶ c).
On September 11, 2015, the State Department denied Ogunji’s passport application
because “the evidence submitted with [Ogunji’s] application does not establish [Ogunji’s]
identity.” (Ltr. from Dept. of State (Doc. No. 8-1).) Kerry filed a letter motion on December 3,
2015, requesting that the Court dismiss the case as moot. Despite two Orders from the Court
directing Ogunji to respond to Kerry’s motion, Ogunji has filed no response. (12/29/2015
Docket Order; 4/5/2016 Docket Order.) The Court therefore considers Kerry’s motion
unopposed.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have jurisdiction only over “live
cases and controversies.” ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 97 (2d Cir. 2004). “A number of
justiciability doctrines govern the contours of this power; pertinent here is mootness, which
concerns when and whether a case is ‘live.’” Cty. of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135, 140 (2d
Cir. 2010). A case is moot if “the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” of
the case. Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Mootness results “when interim relief or events have eradicated the
effects of the defendant’s act or omission, and there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged
violation will recur.” Irish Lesbian and Gay Org. v. Guiliani, 143 F.3d 638, 647 (2d Cir. 1998).

2

Stated differently, “the case is moot ‘if the dispute is no longer embedded in any actual
controversy about the plaintiffs’ particular legal rights.’” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S.Ct.
721, 727 (2013) (quoting Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 93 (2009)). Mootness is a jurisdictional
defect and deprives a court of the authority to adjudicate a case. Fox, 42 F.3d at 140.
Here, Ogunji sought adjudication of her passport application, and adjudication occurred
on September 11, 2015. (Ltr. from Dept. of State.) Therefore, there is no longer a live
controversy between the parties, and the case is moot. See Elliott v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 122 F.
Supp. 3d 39, 43 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Plaintiff’s Complaint sought ‘an order compelling Defendant
to adjudicate Plaintiffs application for [a] U.S. passport,’ which is exactly what Defendants did
without the Court directing them to do so. . . . Defendants adjudicated Plaintiff’s passport
application and issued him a United States passport, prompting the Court to dismiss the case as
moot.”).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Kerry’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment accordingly, mail a copy of the judgment and this Memorandum and Order to
plaintiff pro se, and close the case.
The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Roslynn R. Mauskopf
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 25, 2016

_______________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

3