Court Opinion

ID: 9911985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 16:01:43.850018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:57.676163
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 22-5143                                                 September Term, 2023
                                                                       1:19-cv-02316-RC
                                                       Filed On: December 21, 2023
William Pakosz,

              Appellant

       v.

Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State, of the United States of
America and United States of America,

              Appellees

Michelle Boulton and Rick Dale
Hollingsworth,

              Appellants

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

                                     JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 25, 2022
denying appellant Boulton’s motion to intervene be affirmed. The district court correctly
concluded that, at the time the district court denied appellant’s intervention motion, the
prior issuance of her passport rendered the district court unable to provide any
meaningful relief on the claims she sought to assert as an intervenor. Cf. McBryde v.
Comm. to Review, 264 F.3d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“[I]f events outrun the controversy
such that the court can grant no meaningful relief, the case must be dismissed as
moot.”); Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. FERC, 892 F.3d 1223, 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2018). In
addition, appellant has not established that she is “so situated that disposing of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede [her] ability to protect [her] interest,”
as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). See Chambers v. Burwell, 824
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5143                                                September Term, 2023

F.3d 141, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (this court “may affirm the district court on any ground
supported by the record”). It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal of the district court’s
order filed March 25, 2022 denying appellant Boulton’s motion for sanctions be
dismissed. Because the district court correctly denied intervention, appellant is not a
party to the case and lacks standing to appeal from the denial of the sanctions motion.
See Alternative Research & Dev. Found. v. Veneman, 262 F.3d 406, 411 (D.C. Cir.
2001).

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2