Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02899/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02899-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201an Declaratory Judgement (aliens and nationality)

---

-1- 16cv2899-MMA (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROSE ALICIA PLYMATE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2899-MMA (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 8]

Plaintiff Rose Alicia Plymate (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants 

John F. Kelly, Leon Rodriguez, and Melissa Maxim (collectively “Defendants”) on 

November 28, 2016, seeking a declaration of U.S. citizenship pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 

1503(a). See Complaint. Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Doc. 

No. 8. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. The Court found the 

matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Doc. No. 9. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02899-MMA-MDD Document 10 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 16cv2899-MMA (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCUSSION

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, “[a] federal court is presumed to lack

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, 

Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). 

Without subject matter jurisdiction, a federal court is without “power” to hear or 

adjudicate a claim. See Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 

975 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 

(1998)); Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a party may seek 

dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “either on the face of the 

pleadings or by presenting extrinsic evidence.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 

328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003); see also White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

“Mootness can be characterized as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The 

requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation 

(standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes 

v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case 

that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists.” Foster v. Carson, 347 

F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “If there is no 

longer a possibility that an appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot and 

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Ruvalcaba v. City of L.A., 167 

F.3d 514, 521 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

 Here, Defendants assert that there is no controversy between the parties as to 

Plaintiff’s citizenship. In order to bring a claim under Section 1503(a), a litigant must 

allege that he or she has been denied a right or privilege as a national of the United 

States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a). Thus, a dispute must exist as to Plaintiff’s citizenship in 

order for her claim to proceed. Defendants contend that they “now agree that Plymate 

Case 3:16-cv-02899-MMA-MDD Document 10 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 16cv2899-MMA (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has established U.S. citizenship.” Doc. No. 8-1 at 3. This fact is evidenced by 

Defendants’ approval of Plaintiff’s Form N-600, declaring Plaintiff a U.S. citizen. See 

Doc. No. 8-2. Further, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. Thus, based on the record, the Court finds that no actual or live controversy 

exists, and Plaintiff’s Complaint “must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Foster, 347 

F.3d at 745. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 

DISMISSES this action. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 26, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02899-MMA-MDD Document 10 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3