(PS) Alokozay v. Garland

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 3, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUMAIRA ALOKOZAY, No. 2:24-cv-00084-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER 13 v.

14 MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 8, 2024, plaintiff filed this action with the court pursuant to the Mandamus 18 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706; and the 19 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. (See generally, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asks the 20 court to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate plaintiff’s 21 applications for humanitarian parole for three of her family members. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 16, 29.) 22 Defendants have moved to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 23 (ECF No. 7.) Defendants argue that plaintiff’s action is moot and that her claims do not fall 24 within any of the exceptions to mootness doctrine. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to 25 defendants’ motion, and therefore it is deemed unopposed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). 26 As discussed below, the recommends that defendants’ motion be granted. 27 ///// 28 1 Article III of the United States Constitution requires that a live case or controversy must 2 continue to exist at the time that a federal court decides the case, not just at the time the lawsuit 3 was filed. California Association of Rural Health Clinics v. Douglas, 738 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th 4 Cir. 2013). “If an action or a claim loses its character as a live controversy, then the action or 5 claim becomes ‘moot,’ and [the federal courts] lack jurisdiction to resolve the underlying 6 dispute.” Id., quoting Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789, 797–98 (9th Cir. 1999). 7 Courts often find that mandamus actions filed against the USCIS are moot where the requested 8 relief is resolved after the filing of the mandamus action. See e.g., Allen v. Garland, 9 2023 WL 2457407, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2023) (action moot where plaintiff “received what 10 her complaint requested when USCIS made its decision”). See also Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 11 653 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims must be dismissed as moot if “events subsequent to 12 the filing of the case resolve the parties’ dispute”). 13 Here, plaintiff submitted applications for humanitarian parole for her brother, sister, and 14 mother on October 18, 2021. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 16, 29.) Receipt notices issued for each of these 15 applications.1 On February 6, 2024, the USCIS approved each of plaintiff’s applications. 16 (Declaration of Elliot Wong, ECF No. 7-1 at ¶ 2.) (See USCIS case status reports for case 17 numbers IOE8070617967, IOE8093851717, and IOE8590976221.)2 Accordingly, there no 18 longer exists a live case or controversy and finds that this action is moot and subject to dismissal 19 for lack of jurisdiction.3 20 ///// 21 ///// 22

23 1 On December 15, 2022, the USCIS Humanitarian Affairs Branch informed plaintiff via email that each of the receipt numbers had been converted: MSC2299811321 became IOE8070617967, 24 MSC2299811322 became IOE8093851717, and MSC2299811323 became IOE8590976221. (ECF No. 1 at 34, email from USCIS Humanitarian Affairs Branch.) 25

2 The undersigned takes judicial notice of the USCIS case status reports, available at 26 https://egov.uscis.gov/ that corresponds to plaintiff’s receipt numbers. (ECF No. 1 at 10-15, 34.) 27 The USCIS case status reports confirm that plaintiff’s applications were approved on February 6, 2024, and that approval notices were mailed to plaintiff. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 28 (9th Cir.2010) (taking judicial notice of agency records). 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7 be GRANTED; 4 2. This action be DISMISSED as moot; and 5 3. The clerk of court be directed to CLOSE this case. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 8 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 | shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 12 || objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 14 | Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 ORDER 16 All pleading, discovery, and motion practices in this action are STAYED and all future 17 || hearing dates, including the hearing currently set for April 24, 2024, are VACATED pending 18 || resolution of these findings and recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and 19 || recommendations or non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or 20 || respond to any pleadings or motions until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 21 | Dated: April 2, 2024 / □□ I / dle ae 22 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 || 21,az0k.0084 25 26 27 28