Ma v. Young

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 19, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 LAN MA, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 2:20-cv-01265-RAJ v. 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS TODD YOUNG, et. al, 12 Defendants. 13

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 26. For 16 the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 17 II. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Lan Ma brings a mandamus action to compel individual defendants with 19 the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to render a decision on her Form I-526 20 petition. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff first filed the I-526 petition in September 2015. Id. After 21 initiating this lawsuit, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicated Plaintiff’s I- 22 526 petition. Dkt. # 25. Defendants now bring a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack 23 of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Federal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases 26 authorized by the Constitution or a statutory grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 27 1 America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction 2 rests upon the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Once it is determined that 3 a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has no choice but to dismiss the 4 suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the 5 court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss 6 the action.”). 7 A party may bring a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, and in such 8 cases the court may consider materials beyond the complaint. PW Arms, Inc. v. United 9 States, 186 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1142 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (citing Savage v. Glendale Union 10 High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2003); see also McCarthy v. United States, 11 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Moreover, when considering a motion to dismiss 12 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) the district court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but 13 may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes 14 concerning the existence of jurisdiction.”). 15 IV. DISCUSSION 16 Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider moot claims. Rosemere 17 Neighborhood Ass’n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th 18 Cir.2009). “A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy.” Id. at 19 1172–73 (quoting Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th 20 Cir.1997)). The mootness doctrine assures that federal courts are presented with disputes 21 they can actually resolve by affording meaningful relief to the prevailing party. See PUC 22 v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir.1996). If the plaintiff receives the entire relief 23 sought in a particular action, the case generally becomes moot because there is no longer 24 anything in dispute between the parties. Id. 25 In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to 26 adjudicate her Form I-526. Dkt. # 1. On June 22, 2022, USCIS adjudicated Plaintiff’s Form 27 I-526. Dkt. # 27-1. Because Plaintiff has received the relief sought in this action, this action 1 is moot and the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, 2 the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice. 3 V. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. Dkt. # 5 Dkt. # 26. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall 6 enter judgment and close the case.

7 DATED this 19th day of October, 2022. 8 A 9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27