Muhanna v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 21 MOTION to Dismiss All Claims Other Than 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) filed by Jeh C. Johnson, Leon Rodriguez, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, Tracy Tarango, United States Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 2/9/16. (cm, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
AHMAD S. MUHANNA
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL
CASE NO. 4:15-CV-68
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Jeh C. Johnson, Leon Rodriguez, Tracy Tarango, United
States Citizenship & Immigration Services, and United States Department of Homeland
Security’s Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss All Claims other than 8 U.S.C. §
1421(c) (Dkt. #21). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that Defendants’
motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dr. Ahmad S. Muhanna is a citizen of Palestine (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 10). Plaintiff is currently
classified as a lawful permanent resident of the United States (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 2). Plaintiff filed an
application for naturalization, which the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (the
“USCIS”) denied on February 14, 2012 (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 10). Plaintiff appealed this decision, and a final
administrative denial was issued on November 7, 2014 (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 10).
On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed his original Petition for De Novo Review of Denial of
Application for Naturalization and Request for a Hearing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. #1). On
May 6, 2015, Defendants filed their Partial Answer to Petition for De Novo Review of Denial of
Application for Naturalization and Request for a Hearing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. #16). On
May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Amended Petition for De Novo Review of Denial of Application for
Naturalization and Request for a Hearing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. #19). On June 3,
1
Defendants filed their Partial Answer to Amended Petition for De Novo Review of Denial of Application
for Naturalization and Request for a Hearing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. #22).
On June 3, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss All Claims Other Than 8 U.S.C. §
1421(c) (Dkt. #21). On June 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss All
Claims Other Than 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. #23). On June 18, 2015, Defendants filed their Reply in
Support of Motion to Dismiss All Claims Other Than 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. #24).
LEGAL STANDARD
12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss
Defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over those cases arising under federal law.
U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law if the complaint
establishes that federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily
depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Empire Healthchoice Assur.
Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006).
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion should be granted only if it appears
beyond a doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove a plausible set of facts in support of its claim.
Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 500
U.S. 544, 556-557 (2007) (Stating that Court reviews a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
motion just as it would a 12(b)(6) motion). However, the Court may find a plausible set of facts
by considering: “(1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by the undisputed
facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the
[C]ourt’s resolution of disputed facts.” Lane, 529 F.3d at 557 (quoting Barrera-Montenegro v.
United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Court will accept all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true, and construe those allegations in a light most favorable to
2
the plaintiff. Truman v. United States, 26 F.3d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1994). The party asserting
jurisdiction bears the burden of proof for a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Ramming v. United
States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction when the [C]ourt lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the
case.” CleanCOALition v. TXU Power, 536 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Home
Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998).
When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the
Court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) motion before addressing other motions to dismiss.
Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161 (citing Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977)
(per curiam)). The Court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s case because the plaintiff lacks subject
matter jurisdiction is not a determination on the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from
pursuing a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction. Id.
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Defendant also moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which authorizes certain defenses to be presented via pretrial motions. A Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss argues that, irrespective of jurisdiction, the complaint fails to assert
facts that give rise to legal liability of the defendant. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
require that each claim in a complaint include “a short and plain statement…showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The claim must include enough factual
allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
3
Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a party may move for dismissal of an action for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Court must accept
as true all well-pleaded facts contained in the plaintiff’s complaint and view them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In deciding a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir.
2009). “The Supreme Court recently expounded upon the Twombly standard, explaining that
‘[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Gonzalez, 577 F.3d at 603 (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. “It follows, that ‘where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court
to infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not
‘shown’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id.
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency
of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First the Court should identify and
disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 664. Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to
determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ‘simply calls for
enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the
necessary claims or elements.” Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. App’x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009). This
evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
4
In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss, a district court may generally not
“go outside the complaint.” Scanlan v. Tex. A&M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
However, a district court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss if they are
referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to the plaintiff’s claim. Id.
ANALYSIS
The parties agree that Plaintiff has raised an issue regarding a claim under 8 U.S.C.
1421(c) and that the Court has jurisdiction over this claim (Dkt. #21 at p. 1). Plaintiff made clear
in his reply that he was not asserting additional claims, but only alluding to other issues that
might arise during Plaintiff’s hearing (Dkt. #23 at pp. 1-2) (“The Amended Petition states one
cause of action only . . . the only jurisdictional basis of the Amended Petition is 1421(c).”) After
reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for
purposes of defeating a Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has asserted a
claim under 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) and has not asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure
Act, the First Amendment, or any other statutes implicated by the USCIS’s decision (Dkt. #23 at
.
p. 2).
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. #21) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 9th day of February, 2016.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?