Hamoodi v. Jaddou
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' APA claims to compel naturalization interviews (Claim One) and a plan to prioritize the retrieval and transfer of their A-files (Claim Three) are moot. Plaintiffs' claims to compel adjudication o f their naturalization applications (Claim Two) and a plan to prioritize their applications (Claim Four) are not cognizable under the APA. Defendants' 23 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A C LAIM is therefore GRANTED, and this action will be dismissed without prejudice as to Claims One and Three and with prejudice as to Claims Two and Four...** terminate 24 First MOTION to Certify Class *** STAYED flag cleared. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(SheilaRAnderson, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 07, 2024
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EKHLAS HAMOODI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES;
UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Director,
United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-1713
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 9, 2023, Ekhlas Hamoodi and 75 other lawful permanent
residents
("Plaintiffs")
brought
this
action
against
the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"); Ur
Mendoza Jaddou, as Director of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration
(collectively,
Services;
and
"Defendants") . 1
the
United
States
of
America
Plaintiffs allege that users has
violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") by unreasonably
Original Complaint For Declaratory Relief and Relief Under
the Administrative Procedure Act Class Action ("Complaint"), Docket
The Complaint identifies the named
Entry No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Plaintiffs in paragraphs 1 through 82, but there are no paragraphs
75 through 77, and three Plaintiffs have withdrawn.
at 21;
Order, Docket Entry No. 22.
Plaintiffs requested that four
individuals be withdrawn, but one of them, Nazek Omar Saseila, was
not named in the Complaint.
For
Order, Docket Entry No. 22.
purposes of identification all page numbers reference the
pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court's
Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") system.
1
delaying the processing of their naturalization applications.2
Plaintiffs bring this case as a putative class action.3
before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
No.
For the reasons stated below,
23).
Dismiss will be granted,
Pending
(Docket Entry
Defendants'
Motion to
and this case will be dismissed with
prejudice.
I.
A.
Background
The Complaint
Plaintiffs filed this action on May 9, 2023.4
Plaintiffs are
legal permanent residents who applied in 2020 to become naturalized
U.S. citizens. 5
In
reviewing
pertinent records."
each
application,
8 C.F.R. § 335.1.
USCIS
must
review
"all
Although USCIS has its own
records storage center, it stores some indivictuals' immigration
files ("A-files") at Federal Records Centers ("FRCs") managed by
the
National
Archives
and
Records
Administration
("NARA").6
Plaintiffs allege that in March of 2020 NARA closed the FRCs,
hindering USCIS' s ability to retrieve Plaintiffs·· A-files. 7
2
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 30.
at 28-30.
4
Id. at 1.
5
Id. at 3-22.
at 23.
7
Id. at 24.
-2-
In
February and March of 2022 the FRCs reopened and returned to full
capacity operations. 8 users provided personnel to assist NARA with
the retrieval of A-files. 9
The Complaint alleges that NARA has
completed the retrieval of their A-files. 10
Processing an application requires a naturalization interview.11
When the Complaint was filed users had not interviewed Plaintiffs.12
The
Complaint
seeks judicial review under
§
702 of the
Administrative Procedures Act of uscrs's delay in "[i]nterviewing
Plaintiffs
applications." 13
and deciding whether to approve or deny the
Moreover, Plaintiffs
lege:
Defendants' failure to take the following actions
(1) Develop and
constitutes an unreasonable delay:
implement a plan to prioritize the retrieval of the
A-files of Plaintiffs and proposed class members from the
Federal Records Centers when they reopened and promptly
transfer the A-files to the National Bene
s Center; and
( 2)
Develop and implement a plan to prioritize the
completion of National Benefits Center processing and the
interviewing of Plaintiffs and proposed class members,
the adjudication of their naturalization applications at
the Field Offices, and their participation in an oath
ceremony when their naturalization applications are
approved. 1 4
11
8 C.F.R. § 335.2; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b), (d).
12
See Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 29.
13
Id. at 30.
14
rd. at 30-31.
-3-
In addition to the 76 named Plaintiffs, the Complaint seeks to
represent a putative class of all
individuals[]
who
filed
an
application
for
naturalization; and whose A-files USCIS had stored in
NARA Federal Records Centers or they are on hold because
of P2 program(as the USCIS stated); and who have not yet
been interviewed on their naturalization application.15
Plaintiffs
ask
the
court
to
"[d]eclare
that
Defendants
have
violated the [APA] by unreasonably delaying the adjudication of the
naturalization applications
Plaintiffs and the class members,"
require USCIS to complete processing of Plaintiffs' applications
and to place them in the interview queue within 14 days after the
Plaintiffs'
interview
A-files are retrieved from NARA, require USCIS to
Plaintiffs
within
10
days
of
placing
them
in
the
interview queue, and require USCIS to include successful Plaintiffs
in an oath ceremony within five days of approval or in the next
ceremony that is due to occur. 16
B.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss on December 21,
2023.17
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims are moot and that
the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 18
In support of their mootness argument Defendants attach
15
Id. at 29.
16
Id. at 31.
1
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 23.
7
18
Id. at 10-11. Defendants also argue that the United States
of America is not a proper party. Id. at 13. Because Plaintiffs'
(continued...)
-4
the
very
thorough
Declaration
of
Claudia
F.
Young,
who
is
"responsible for overseeing and reviewing information provided
through a USCIS internal database,
System
("ELIS"). "19
the Electronic Immigration
Young "ran the named Plaintiffs' A-numbers
through the ELIS database" and provides information regarding their
Ahas
les and naturalization appl
naturalized
65
ions.20
plaintiffs
and
Young states that USCIS
interviewed
or
scheduled
interviews for the 11 other plaintiffs. 21 All named Plaintiffs were
interviewed by January 4, 2024, except for two who asked
users
to
postpone their interviews to January 22 and 31, 2024.22
Plaintiffs responded and moved for class certification on
January 4, 2024. 23
Plaintiffs' Response argues that the case is not
moot because there are potential class members who have not been
continued)
claims will be dismissed as to all defendants on other grounds, the
court need not address this argument.
18 ( •.
•
Because it includes the most up-to-date information on
Plaintiffs' interviews, the court relies on the updated declaration
attached to the Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss ("Defendant's Reply"), Docket Entry No. 29. See
Declaration of Claudia F. Young ("Young Deel.") . Exhibit A to
Defendants' Reply, Docket Entry No. 29-1, p. 1 i 1.
19
20
Id. i 2.
21
Id at 2-3, ii 4 (a)- (k).
Response to Plaintiff's [sic] Motion to Dismiss ("Plaintiffs'
Response"), Docket Entry No. 25; Motion for Class Certification and
Memorandum of Points of Law and Authority ("Motion to Certify
Class"), Docket Entry No. 24.
23
-5-
interviewed and that the Complaint states a valid unreasonable
delay claim under the APA.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
seeks to certify the class of "[a]ll individuals:
N-400 application with
users
for Naturalization _.
(a) who filed
and 1. whose
applications have been pending for at least 24[] months from the
date of filing[] Or 2. had [an] interview but it's over 120 days
and
users
failed to issue a decision. "H
The Motion to Certify
Class offers two proposed class representatives, but neither is a
named plaintiff in this action.25
II.
A.
Legal Standard
Mootness
"[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live
or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome."
City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 120 S. Ct. 1382, 1390 (2000)
County of Los Angeles v. Davis,
99 S. Ct. 1379,
(internal quotation marks omitted).
1383
(quoting
(1979))
"The underlying concern is
that, when the challenged conduct ceases such that there is no
reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated, then it
becomes impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief
whatever to [the] prevailing party."
Id. (quoting United States v.
W.T. Grant Co., 73 S. Ct. 894 (1953), and Church of Scientology of
California v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 447, 449 (1992)) (internal
24
Motion to Certify Class, Docket Entry No. 24, p. 1.
25
Id. at 3.
-6-
quotation marks omitted).
"In that case, any opinion as to the
legality of the challenged action would be advisory."
Id.
But
"'as long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small,
in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.'"
Knox v.
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277,
2287 (2012) (quoting Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 104 S. Ct. 1883, 1889
(1984)).
The court may determine mootness based on "'the complaint
supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of
disputed facts.'"
Withrow v. Miller, 348 F. App'x 946, 948 (5th
Cir. 200 9) (per curiam) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F. 2d
404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)).
The court should address mootness
before proceeding to the merits.
See Lauren C. by and through
Tracey K. v. Lewisville Independent School District, 904 F.3d 363,
371 (5th Cir. 2018).
B.
Failure to State a Claim
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a "pleading that
states a claim for relief must contain .
. a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief."
Fed. R.
defendant may
Civ.
P. 8(a)(2).
Under Rule
12(b)(6), a
le a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiff
has "fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
"To survive a motion to dismiss," a
complaint must contain enough factual allegations to "'state a
-7-
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Ashcroft v.
Igbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)).
"[Al formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do."
127 S. Ct. at 1965.
Twombly,
"The 'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as
true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'"
In
re
Katrina
Canal
Breaches
Litigation,
495
F.3d
191,
205
(5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Construction Co. v. Dallas
Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004).
III.
Plaintiffs'
APA
The Naturalization Process
claims
involve
multiple
stages
of
the
application process for a legal permanent resident to become a
naturalized citizen.
The process starts when a legal permanent
resident satisfies the required residency period and appl
for
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a), 1430, 1445(a).
users
naturalization.
then conducts a "personal investigation" of the applicant, which
must include
"a review of all pertinent records."
§ 1446(a); 8 e.F.R. § 335.1.
8 u.s.c.
users then conducts a naturalization
interview of the applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b); 8 C.F.R. § 335.2. 26
The parties cite no statute or regulation setting a time limit for
users to complete an applicant's investigation or interview.
But
See also Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432, 435-38 (5th Cir.
2007) (holding that the "examination" refers to the naturalization
interview).
26
-8-
the APA authorizes courts to "compel agency action unlawfully
withheld or unreasonably delayed" when "there is no other adequate
remedy in a court."
5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), 704.
The USCIS employee who interviews the applicant "shall make a
determination as to whether the application should be granted or
denied, with reasons therefor."
8 U.S.C. § 1446 (d).
If
users
fails to grant or deny the application within 120 days of the
interview, the applicant may request a hearing in federal district
court.
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
The court has jurisdiction and may
adjudicate the application itself or remand it to
appropriate instructions."
users
"with
If the application is granted, the
applicant participates in a public oath ceremony and becomes a
citizen as of the oath date.
§ 337.9. 27
Naturallzatlon
Appllc:atfon
.. Ill
8
U.S.C. § 1448 (a);
8
C.F.R.
This process is illustrated below: 28
Personal
lnvastl,latlon
y
De� Governed by
APA Reasonableness
•
•
CIS Approves or
Oilth Ceremony
Denies Appllcatlon
Naturalization
lnmrvlew
I l
1
Ill
120 DilV Umit
au.s.c. § 1447(b)
The timing provisions for oath ceremonies vary depending on
what entity administers the ceremony.
See generally 8 C.F.R.
§§ 310.3, 337.2.
Although Plaintiffs ask the court to set
deadlines for users to administer Plaintiffs' oath ceremonies, the
Complaint does not allege an APA claim based on oath ceremony
delays, and the court need not address these timing provisions to
rule on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
27
The court prepared this illustrative time line for the
reader's convenience.
It is not an offic 1 or exhaustive
statement of the law governing the naturalization process.
28
-9-
IV.
The
Complaint
withholding
or
unreasonably
interviewing
( 1)
applications,
alleges
Analysis
users
that
delaying
Plaintiffs,
four
the
required
adjudicating
(2)
" [ d] evelop [ ing]
(3)
violated
APA
by
actions:
Plaintiffs'
a plan to
and implement [ ing]
prioritize the retrieval of the A-files of Plaintiffs and proposed
class members from the Federal Records Centers when they reopened
s Center,"
and promptly transfer the A-files to the National Bene
and ( 4) " [ d] eve lop [ ing] and implement [ ing] a plan to prioritize the
completion
of
interviewing
of
National
Benefits
Plaintiffs
and
Center
proposed
processing
class
and
the
members,
the
adjudication of their naturalization applications at the Field
Offices, and their participation in an oath ceremony when their
naturalization applications are approved." 29
Defendants argue that the case is moot and that the Complaint
fails
to
state
a
claim
upon
which
relief
can
be
granted.
Plaintiffs argue that the case is not moot because there are
potent
class members who have not been interviewed and that the
Complaint states a valid unreasonable-delay claim under the APA.
A.
Mootness
Defendants
Plaintiffs
argue
(except
that
two
potential class members'
29
who
users
has
requested
interviewed
postponement)
all
and
named
that
claims should not be considered where
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 30-31.
-10-
Plaintiffs did not move for class certification before the named
Plaintiffs' claims were mooted.
Plaintiffs respond by referencing
a list of potential class members, most of whom are marked as not
having been interviewed. 30
1.
USCIS's Delay in Conducting Naturalization Interviews
Plaintiffs'
first
APA
claim
alleges
unreasonably delayed interviewing them.
that
Defendants
Defendants argue that this
claim is moot because all named Plaintiffs have been interviewed or
requested that their interview be postponed for later.
Plaintiffs
do not argue that any of the named Plaintiffs have non-moot claims.
Instead, Pl
who
ntiffs argue that there are potential class members
have not
been interviewed.
Plaintiffs
moved for class
certification after Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and on
the same day that the last named Plaintiff's claim was mooted.
To avoid mootness, a class action generally must have "a named
plaintiff who has [] a [live] case or controversy at the time the
complaint is filed, and at the time the class action is certified
by the District Court pursuant to Rule 23."
95 S. Ct. 553, 559 (1975).
Circuit
Sosna v. Iowa,
Defendants acknowledge that the Fifth
has recognized an exception in some cases when the
defendant tenders relief to the named plaintiffs while "there is
pending before the district court a timely filed and diligently
Plaintiffs' Response, Docket Entry No. 25, pp. 4-5; Potential
Class Members, Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Response, Docket Entry
No. 25-1.
30
-11-
pursued motion for class certification."
Zeidman v.
J. Ray
McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1051 (5th Cir. 1981).
This
exception exists at least in part because some controversies are
"so transitory that no class can be certified before the claims of
all original plaintiffs become moot," making the issue "'capable of
repetition, yet evading review.'"
Id. at 1047.
In such a case,
the mootness of the named plaintiffs' claims (for purposes of class
claim mootness) is evaluated as of the complaint's filing date.
See id.
But Defendants argue that Zeidman does not apply because
Plaintiffs did not move for class certification before their claim
was mooted.
This distinction is supported by Fontenot v. Mccraw,
777 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2015).
In Fontenot the court declined to
extend the Zeidman exception where the named plaintiffs' claims
were mooted before they moved for class certification.
Id. at 751.
The court emphasized that the plaintiffs could have filed a class
certification motion at the outset of the case and that the general
mootness rule would not cause issues to evade review.
Id.
Plaintiffs did not move for class certification until the day
the last named Plaintiff's claim was mooted.
months
after
representatives
the
are
case
not
was
filed,
among
the
and
This was about eight
the
case's
proposed
named
class
Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have not pointed to any circumstances that prevented
them from filing an earlier class certification motion.
Nor do
Plaintiffs argue that the alleged issues will evade review under
-12-
ordinary
mootness
pr8judicial to
Extending
rules.
users,
the
exception
would
be
which expended resources preparing the Motion
to Dismiss based on the case's impending mootness and Plaintiffs'
lack of action towards certifying a class.
does
not
apply
here,
and
the
court
Plaintiffs' first APA claim is moot,
The Zeidman exception
declines
to
extend
it.
and the court will grant
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to this claim.
2.
USCIS's Failure to Develop and Implement a Plan
Prioritizing Retrieval of Plaintiffs' A-files
Plaintiffs' third APA claim alleges that
users
unlawfully
failed to develop and implement a plan prioritizing the retrieval
of their A-files from FRCs and the trans
of their A-files to the
National
investigations.
Benefits
Center
for
personal
The
Complaint acknowledged that Plaintiffs' A-files had been retrieved
from the FRCs.
Because Plaintiffs have all been in�erviewed or had
interviews scheduled, the pre-interview processing at the National
Benefits Center is necessa
ly complete.
Because Plaintiffs no
longer have a "'concrete interest'" in the requested retrieval
plan, this claim is moot.
See Knox, 132 S. Ct. at 2287.
For the
same reasons explained above as to Plaintiffs' first APA claim, any
class claim for such plan is also moot.
B.
Rule 12(b) (6)
Plaintiffs'
remaining
claims
involve
adjudication
of
Plaintiffs' applications and are therefore not moot as to all named
-13-
Plaintiffs. 31
But Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state
a claim under the APA.
1.
USCIS's Failure to Timely Adjudicate Applications
Plaintiffs'
second claim alleges that USCIS unreasonably
delayed adjudicating their applications.
APA review is limited to
agency action "for which there is no other adequate remedy in a
court."
5 u.s.c. § 704.
The naturalization statute allows
applicants to seek relief in federal district court if their
applications
are
"examination."
not
adjudicated
within
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
120
days
of
their
The Fifth Circuit has held
that "examination" refers to the naturalization interview.
Walji,
500 F.3d at 435-38.
Defendants cite several cases holding that§ 1447(b) provided
Plaintiffs with an adequate remedy for post-interview delays,
thereby displacing unreasonable-delay APA review of the same.32
Plaintiffs cite no contrary authority.
Congress set a specific time limit and created a unique remedy
for USCIS's
broader range of
lure to meet it.
Section 1447 (b) authorizes a
ief than the APA;§ 1447(b) allows the court to
See Young Deel., Exhibit A to Defendants' Reply, Docket Entry
No. 29-1, pp. 2-3 ii 4(a)-(k).
31
See Tankoano v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
652 F. Supp. 3d 812, 818 (S.D. Tex. 2023); Rangoonwala v. Swacina,
No. 08-21588-CIV, 2008 WL 5070299, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2008);
Boakye v. Hansen, 554 F. Supp. 2d 784, 787 (S.D. Ohio 2008); Ahmed
v. Holder, No. 4:08CV826 HEA, 2009 WL 3228675, at *6 (E.D. Mo.
Sept. 30, 2009).
32
-14-
adjudicate
the
application
itself
or
to
impose
"appropriate
instructions" on remand while the APA merely allows the court to
It is not clear that unreasonable-delay
compel adjudication. 33
But at the very
review ever applies to post-interview delays.
least, nothing in the Complaint or Plaintiffs' Response indicates
that§ 1447(b) is not an "adequate remedy" for their post-interview
delays,
if
any.
that
delayed
Plaintiffs' interviews (delays in retrieving their A-fi
s) were
necessarily
Moreover,
resolved
the
before
their
circumstances
Without
interviews.
any
particular allegations of post-interview delays or what is causing
them, there is no basis for concluding that§ 1447(b) is inadequate
to address them.
regarding
claim
Plaintiffs have failed to state a cognizable APA
Defendants'
alleged
adjudication
delays.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will therefore be granted as to this
claim.
2.
USCIS's Failure to Develop and Implement
Prioritizing Plaintiffs' Applications
a
Plan
Plaintiffs' fourth claim alleges that Defendants failed to
develop
and
processing,
implement
interviews,
a
plan
to
prioritize
adjudication,
and
Plaintiffs
oath
for
ceremonies.
Defendants argue that this claim fails because it asks the court to
The authority to impose instructions on USCIS includes the
authority to compel action by a deadline. See, e.g., Osakwe v.
Department of Homeland Security, Civil Action No. G-07-00308, 2008
WL 151073, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2008).
33
-15-
compel agency action that
APA's
review
of
users
"unlawfully
The
is not required to take.34
withheld"
agency
action requires
Plaintiffs to identify "a discrete agency action that [the agency]
is required to take."
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,
124 S. Ct. 2373, 2379 (2004) (emphasis in original).
"A court's
authority to compel agency action is limited to instances where an
agency ignored
'a specific,
unequivocal command' in a federal
statute or binding regulation."
Fort Bend County v. United States
Army Corps of Engineers, 59 F.4th 180, 197 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting
SUWA,
Plaintiffs "cannot seek wholesale
124 S. Ct. at 2379).
improvement of [an agency] program by court decree, rather than in
the offices of the Department or the halls of Congress,
programmatic improvements are normally made."
where
Lujan v. National
Wildlife Federation, 110 S. Ct. 3177, 3190 (1990).
Plainti
' fourth claim requests that
users
make a policy
choice to prioritize their applications to compensate for previous
delays
in
identified,
retrieving
and
the
their
court
Plaintiffs
A-files.
is
not
aware
regulation that requires such a policy.
of,
any
have
not
statute
or
The court therefore has no
authority under the APA to compel the requested plan.
Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss will therefore be granted as to this claim.
Defendants make this argument as to all of Plaintiffs' APA
claims. But because the other three claims will be dismissed on
other grounds as explained above, the court need not address
whether Plaintiffs' other claims allege actions that the agency is
required to take.
34
-16-
V.
Plaintiffs'
Conclusion and Order
APA claims to compel naturalization interviews
(Claim One) and a plan to prioritize the retrieval and transfer of
their A-files (Claim Three) are moot.
Plaintiffs' claims to compel
adjudication of their naturalization applications (Claim Two) and
a plan to prioritize their applications
cognizable under the APA.
Entry No.
23)
(Claim Four)
are not
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket
is therefore GRANTED,
and this action will be
dismissed without prejudice as to Claims One and Three and with
prejudice as to Claims Two and Four.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 7th day of February, 2024.
7
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-17-
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?