ALD

- 108 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 7

- 2219

___________ JOHN MCGILL , Appellant

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

________________________________ ____ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ( D.N.J. Civil Action No. 2

- 15

- cv - 00031) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 25, 2018 Before: MCKEE , VANASKIE , and S CIRICA , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 26 , 2018)
OPINION *
PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 John McGill, a New Jersey state pris oner proceeding pro se , appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. W e will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 McGill filed a complaint pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against the Attorney General of the United States and the United States . McGill alleg ed that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied his application for a certificate of c itizenship afte r he was unable to pro vide his birth certificate and other documents

. McGill sought a declaratory judgment that he is a United States citizen and that he is entitled to a certificate of c itizenship. He attached to his complaint the decisions he received from USCIS and incorporated them therein. The District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint , stating that McGill sought relief that was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. On appeal, we vacated the District Court’s order

. Noting that the District Court had not provided l egal reasoning for its ruling, w e concluded that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of McGill’s complaint under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2201. McGill v. Att’y Gen. , 62 3 F. App’x 49 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (non

precedential).

1 McGill’s motion to reopen his appeal and motion to proc eed in forma pauperis are granted. McGill must pay the full filing fee in installments. The Clerk shall issue an order addressing payment of the fee

.3 On remand, t he defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6 ) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendants asserted that McGill alleged that he is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States and that c ertificate s of c iti z en s hip may only be granted to Americans who have derived or acquired citizenship through means other than birth in th e United States. The defendants also moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and argued that the facts alleged in McGill ’s complaint d id not satisfy 8
U.S.C. § 1503 (a) , which a llows a declaratory judgment action where an agency denies a
ri ght on the ground that the individual is not a United States citizen

. The District Court agreed with the defendants that McGill , who claims that he was born in South Carolina, is not eligible to receive a certificate of c itizenship and granted
the Rule 12 (b)(6) motion

. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is plenary. In re Asbestos Products Liab. Litig. (No. VI) , 822 F.3d 125, 131 (3d Cir. 2016). Subject to certain exceptions , a person who cla ims a right or privilege as a United States national that is denied u pon the ground that he is not a United States national may bring an action u nder 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for a judgment declaring him to be a United States national. 8 U.S.C. § 1503 (a)

. As not ed above, w e have ruled that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of McGill’s complaint , which alleged that he sought a certificate of citizenship and that a certificate was denied

.4 We agree with the District Court that , to the ext ent McGill seeks a declaration that he is entitled to a certificate of c itizenship from USCIS, he fails to state a claim for relief

. Certificates of c itizenship are issued to persons who became citizens through
natura lization of a parent or husband or by virtue of statutes addressing the citizenship of
persons born outside the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1452

. McGill states that he was born in South Carolina and the statute does not provide for the issuance of a c ertificate of

c itizenship to per sons bo rn in the United States. Based on this conclusion , it follows that the District Court was not required to determine whether McGill is in fact a United States citizen. Even acceptin g McGill’s allegations as true, the c ertificate that he seeks is unavailab le to him. 2 Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

2 T o the extent t here is a question whether McGill exhausted his administrative remedies before filing hi s declaratory judgment action, we do not consider this issue because the District Court did not need to adjudicate McGill’s citizenship claim.