Case ID: f-appx_573/html/0828-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

D.’Uryyah AJAMU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Denise Y. WILLIS, et al., Defendants, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-10258
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 28, 2014.
    D.’Uryyah Ajamu, Orlando, FL, pro se.
    Michelle Thresher Taylor, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Scott H. Park, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

D.’Uryyah Ajamu appeals pro se the dismissal of his amended complaint against the United States Postal Service for violating the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and for withholding information because of discriminatory animus. The district court dismissed Ajamu’s amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed Ajamu’s amended complaint. Ajamu alleged that the Service violated the Act by withholding an individual’s address, but Ajamu attached to his original complaint a response in which the Service provided the individual’s last known address. Ajamu’s claim about a violation of the Act became moot when the Service produced the address. See Lovell v. Alderete, 630 F.2d 428, 430-31 (5th Cir.1980). And the Service was not liable for the individual’s supposed refusal to update her address. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 162, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1522, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975). Ajamu also alleged that the Service withheld the mailing address because of his “race, color, nationality, and faith,” but the district court correctly ruled that claim was barred by sovereign immunity, see Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 484, 126 S.Ct. 1252, 1256, 163 L.Ed.2d 1079 (2006).

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Ajamu’s amended complaint.