Rivera Cerda et al v. Valencia Gonzalez et al

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING 11 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. File is CLOSED. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (TNC, Case Administrator)

1

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Aug 29, 2024

3

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

MIGUEL VALENCIA GONZALEZ,
SOCORRO ISABEL SOLTERO, and
MARIA TRINIDAD RIVERA CERDA,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12

v.

No.

1:24-cv-3047-EFS

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND DIRECTING
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

KARLA MORAN, ALEJANDRO
MAYORKAS, UR MENDOZA JADDOU,
ANTONY J. BLINKEN, PHILLIP
SLATTERY and RICHARD C. VISEK,
Defendants.

13
14
15

Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this lawsuit, which seeks immigration

16

relief, for several reasons, including that Plaintiff’s prior similar lawsuit was

17

dismissed by the Court in March 2024 and therefore this lawsuit should be

18

dismissed on res judicata grounds and for the same reasons the prior lawsuit was

19

dismissed. 1 Unlike the prior case in which Plaintiffs failed to respond to

20

Defendants’ dismissal motion, Plaintiffs responded to—and oppose—the Motion to

21
22

1

See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS.

Order— Page 1 of 3

1

Dismiss in this case, arguing that res judicata does not bar this lawsuit, that

2

subject-matter jurisdiction exists over the I-601A unreasonable delay claims, that

3

the DS-260-visa-related claims are ripe, and that Plaintiffs state plausible claims

4

for relief.

5

Plaintiff’s opposition to dismissal is without merit. First, dismissal of the I-

6

601A unreasonable-delay claims are proper because claim preclusion bars these

7

claims, as the Court ruled in the prior lawsuit that the Court lacks subject-matter

8

jurisdiction over such claims because 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) bars judicial review

9

of whether the agency has processed an I-601A application in a reasonable time. 2

10

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument otherwise, the Court’s prior decision that it lacks

11

subject-matter jurisdiction to review the unreasonable-delay claims related to the I-

12

601A application is given preclusive effect. 3

13
14

Second, as was discussed in the Court’s prior order, the DS-260-visa-related
claims against the State Department Defendants are unripe. 4

15
16
17
18

2

See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS, ECF No. 14 at 8–16.

19

3

See Mast v. Long, 84 Fed. App’x 786, 786–87 (9th Cir. 2003) (unpublished opinion);

20
21
22

Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1005–06 (9th
Cir. 2002).
4

See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS, ECF No. 14 at 7.

Order— Page 2 of 3

1
2

Likewise, as was discussed in the Court’s prior order, Plaintiffs fails to state
a due process claim. 5

3
4

For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted. This lawsuit is
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). 6

5

I.

CONCLUSION

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.

8

2.

The Clerk’s Office is to enter Judgment in Defendants’ favor with

9

prejudice as to Plaintiff’s I-601A-related claims over which the

10

court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and without prejudice as

11

to Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.

14

DATED this 29th day August 2024.

15
16

EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

5

See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS, ECF No. 14 at 16–17.

22

6

See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS, ECF No. 14.

Order— Page 3 of 3