Lucero v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CHLOE LUCERO, 11 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00683-RAJ-BAT 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendant.

15 On October 13, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice 16 and directed the Clerk to close this case. Dkt. 23. On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a 17 “Motion to Begin Proceedings for Denaturalization & Expatriation.” Dkt. 24. The Court 18 denies this motion. 19 Plaintiff’s motion is largely nonsensical. It appears that Plaintiff wishes this Court 20 to make her a “non-citizen.” While Plaintiff has the right to renounce citizenship, this 21 Court is not the proper forum for the requested “denaturalization & expatriation”. 22 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 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 for that country – not this Court. 5 Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because it was filed in a dismissed action and 6 fails to state a justiciable claim for relief. For a plaintiff's claim to be justiciable, she 7 “must have standing to bring the claim, and the claim must not be moot.” Jacobs v. Clark 8 Cty. Sch. Dist., 526 F.3d 419, 425 (9th Cir. 2008). To establish standing, a plaintiff must 9 show “(1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the 10 conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a 11 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 This case was closed because Plaintiff failed to state a viable claim for relief. By 17 this latest motion, Plaintiff has presented nothing to show a likelihood that her claimed 18 injuries can be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court. Accordingly, the motion 19 (Dkt. 24) is DENIED. 20 DATED this 18th day of November, 2021. 21 A 22 23 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge