# U n i ted S ta te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5111 September Term, 2023 1: 19-cv -023 16-RC Filed O n: May30 , 20 24 Davi d A lan Ca rmicha el an d L awrence Dona ld Lewis, App ellant s W illiam Pa kosz,

App ellee

v

. Ant ony J. Blinke n, in his o f f icial capa city

as Secret aryof

Sta te, of

the United Sta tes o f Am erica a nd United Sta tes o f Am erica, App ellees

ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: W ilkins, Childs, a nd Pan , Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T
T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). Upon consid eratio n o f the foregoing, th e m otion to supp lem entthe ap pen dix, the o ppo sition t here to, and the lodged sup plem ent al app end ix ; an d th e u nop pose d m otion to exceed t he word lim it, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion to supp lem entthe ap pen dix be de nied . T he docu me nts in the lodged sup plem ent al ap pen dix are no t pa rt of the record on app eal. See Fed . R. A pp. P. 10(a ) (def ining cont ent s of record on app eal). Nor ha ve a ppe llants shown tha t sup plem ent ing the record “would e stab lish be yond an y do ubtthe prop er resolut ion o f

the pe ndin g issues” or ot herwi se would b e “in t he intere sts of justice. ” See Colbert v . Po tter, 471 F.3d 15 8, 1 66 (D.C. Cir. 2006 ) (citation om itted ). It is FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e m otion to exceed t he word lim it be granted . T he Clerk is directed to f ile the f inal o pen ing brief lodged by app ellant s. Itis

# U n i ted S ta te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5111 September Term, 2023

FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rders en tered March 25 , 20 22, May 25, 2 022 , an d March 20, 20 23 be af f irmed . T he district cou rt correctly conclude d th at a ppe llants’ rece ipt o f valid passp orts m oot ed the ir claims for equitab le an d d eclarat oryrelief . S ee McBryde v . Com m. to Revi ew, 264 F.3d 52 , 55 (D.C. Cir. 2001 ) (“If events o utrun the con troversy such tha t th e co urt ca n grant no me anin gfu l relief , th e ca se m ust b e d ismissed as m oot .”). Ap pellan t Carm ichae l has notsho w n th at re instat ing his prior pa ssport would provide h im with an y “me anin gfu l relief .” Se e id. Nor ca n a ppe llants a void m oot ness by alleging injury from be ing “haran gued” b y

third partie s, which is notan alleged injuryup on w hich t heir co mp laint is base d. See Clarke v. United Sta tes, 915 F.2d 69 9, 7 03 (D.C. Cir. 1990 ) (plaintif fs resisting a m oot ness claim “mustbe esto ppe d to asse rt a b road er no tion of the ir injury tha n th e o ne on w hich t hey origi nally sought relief”). Moreover, ap pellan ts’ allegation s of injury to th ird pa rties do no t sho w tha t an exception to mo otn ess a pplies. Se e S and s v . NLRB, 82 5 F.3 d 7 78, 78 4 (D.C. Cir. 20 16) (sta ting tha t ap pellan t “can notavoid mo otn ess b y

asse rting the rig hts o f

third partie s w hen she he rself fails to me et A rticle III’s requirem ent s”); see a lso Clarke, 915 F.2d at 704 (capa ble o f repe tition yet e vadin g rev iew exception requires sho w ing of “a rea sona ble e x pect ation tha t th e sa me com plainin g party would be subjected to the sam e a ction again”) (citation om itted ) (emp hasis a dde d). S imilarly , ap pellan ts ha ve n ot sh own thatthe re rem ains a “substa ntial co ntroversy , be tween pa rties ha v ing adverse legal inte rests, o f suf f icient imm edia cy

an d rea lity

to warrant the issuan ce o f a d eclarat oryjudgm ent .” Se e P reiser v . Newkir k, 42 2 U.S . 39 5, 4 02 (197 5) (clean ed up). Add itiona lly , th e d istrict court co rrectly dism issed a ppe llants’ claim for da ma ges und er th e Religious Free dom Resto ration Act (“RF RA”), 42 U.S.C. § 20 00b b-1, beca use app ellant s failed to id ent if y a waiver of

sovereign imm unity for th at cla im. Se e W ebm an v . Fed . Bu reau of Prisons, 44 1 F.3 d 1 022 , 10 26 (D.C. Cir. 2006 ) (stating tha t “RFRA doe s no t waive th e fede ral governm ent ’s sovereig n im mu nity fo r dam ages”). Furthe rmore , Carm ichae l has notsup porte d h is argume nt t hatthe district co urt abu sed its discretio n in directing him to indicat e h ow he would ta ke p ossessio n o f the passp ort th at h e m ailed to t he district cou rt clerk’s of fice. Ca rmicha el ha s po inted to no aut hority thatthe cou rt was required to h old h is passp ort. Finally , ap pellan ts ha ve forfeited an y cha llenge to the district co urt’s dism issal of the ir claims for da ma ges und er th e P rivacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5 52a , an d th e Fif th Am end me nt Du e P rocess Clau se. See United Sta tes e x rel. T otte n v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 48 8, 4 97 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ) (“Ordinarily , argum ent s tha t pa rties do no t ma ke o n a ppe al are de em ed to h ave bee n waived. ”). It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e a ppe al be dism issed a s m oot as to the district co urt’s orde rs ent ered Jan uary 20, 202 1 a nd April 19 , 20 21, an d a s to the May 7, 20 21 orde r ent ering a d ispositive mo tions sched ule. Ap pellan ts’ receip t of Page 2

# U n i ted S ta te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5111 September Term, 2023

valid p asspo rts me ans the cou rt can provide n o “m ean ingfu l relief” as to the se o rders. See McBryde, 26 4 F.3 d a t 55 . Itis FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rder en tered August 28, 20 20 be af

f irmed in p art a nd tha t th e a ppe al of tha t ord er be dism issed a s mo ot in pa rt. Ap pellan ts ha ve forfeited an y cha llenge to the district co urt’s dism issal of the ir claims for da ma ges und er 42 U.S.C. § 4 08 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 41, an d th e o rder is af f irmed as t o th e d ismissal o f tho se claim s. S ee Gov’t of Manito ba v . Be rnha rdt, 9 23 F.3d 17 3, 1 79 (D.C. Cir. 2019 ) (“A party forfeits a n a rg um entby me ntion ing it only in the mo st skele tal way

. . . .”) (interna l quotat ion m arks om itted ). Ad dition ally , th e a ppe al of the orde r is mo ot in sofar as the district co urt d ismissed ap pellan ts’ claim s tha t app ellees v iolate d 2 2 U.S .C. § 272 1 a nd Executive Ord er 13 ,79 8, t heir claim tha t 22 C.F.R. §§ 51 .60 an d 5 1.7 0 a re un const itution ally overbroad in violation of the Fif th Am end me nt, and the ir claim th at a ppe llees violated the First, Fif th, and Ninth Am end me nts b y

ref using to disclose the na me s of the em ployees who were involved in rev iew ing app ellant s’ passp ort a pplicat ions. Ap pellan ts did no t asse rt an y rig ht t o dam ages arising f rom the se claim s. Nor d id th ey assert a ny ri ght to equitab le or decla ratory relief

arising f rom the se claim s oth er th an the request for a valid p asspo rt and a d eclarat ion t hatthe governm ent ’s passp ort p olicy was u nlawfu l. Acco rdingly , an y request for equita ble o r decla ratory relief for th ese claims was m oot ed by appe llants’ receiptof

valid passp orts. See McBryde, 26 4 F.3 d a t 55

. Finally , ap pellan ts argue on app eal t hatthe y asse rted a claim un der t he Fede ral T ort Claim s Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1 346 (b). However, a ppe llants waived this argume nt b y

no t asse rting an FT CA claim in d istrict court. Se e K eep seagle v. Perdu e, 856 F.3d 10 39, 10 53 (D.C. Cir. 2017 ) (“It is well sett led t hatissues and legal the ories notasse rted at t he District Court level ordina rily w ill not b e h eard on ap pea l.”) (ci tatio n om itted ). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

Page 3