Lucero v. United States of America

Filing 25

ORDER re Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Begin Proceedings for Denaturalization & Expatriation of Ms. Lucero. This case was closed because Plaintiff failed to state a viable claim for relief. By this latest motion, Plaintiff has presented nothing to show a likelihood that her claimed injuries can be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court. Accordingly, the motion (Dkt. 24 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SR) (cc: Plaintiff via U.S. mail)

Case 2:21-cv-00683-RAJ-BAT Document 25 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

CHLOE LUCERO,
Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00683-RAJ-BAT
ORDER DENYING MOTION

v.

13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

On October 13, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice
and directed the Clerk to close this case. Dkt. 23. On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a
“Motion to Begin Proceedings for Denaturalization & Expatriation.” Dkt. 24. The Court
denies this motion.
Plaintiff’s motion is largely nonsensical. It appears that Plaintiff wishes this Court
to make her a “non-citizen.” While Plaintiff has the right to renounce citizenship, this

22

Court is not the proper forum for the requested “denaturalization & expatriation”.

23

Plaintiff must appear at a US Consular Office in a foreign country in person. Plaintiff also
requests issuance of a refugee travel document so that she can travel to a country willing
ORDER DENYING MOTION - 1

Case 2:21-cv-00683-RAJ-BAT Document 25 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 2

1

to accept her asylum claim. Again, this Court is not the proper forum for the relief sought

2

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is free to leave this country at any time, renounce her citizenship,

3

and seek asylum elsewhere. Whether another country will grant her asylum is a decision

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

for that country – not this Court.
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because it was filed in a dismissed action and
fails to state a justiciable claim for relief. For a plaintiff's claim to be justiciable, she
“must have standing to bring the claim, and the claim must not be moot.” Jacobs v. Clark
Cty. Sch. Dist., 526 F.3d 419, 425 (9th Cir. 2008). To establish standing, a plaintiff must
show “(1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the

11

conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a

12

favorable decision.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157–58, 134 S.Ct.

13

2334, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) (citation, alterations, and punctuation omitted). A case is

14

moot if there is no “present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” Doe

15

No. 1 v. Reed, 697 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

16
17
18
19
20
21

This case was closed because Plaintiff failed to state a viable claim for relief. By
this latest motion, Plaintiff has presented nothing to show a likelihood that her claimed
injuries can be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court. Accordingly, the motion
(Dkt. 24) is DENIED.
DATED this 18th day of November, 2021.

A

22
23

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION - 2