Mohamed v. Pompeo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NASSR ABDULLA MOHAMED, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01345-NONE-SKO 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 12 v. (Doc. No. 30) 13 MICHAEL POMPEO, Secretary of State, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On September 25, 2019, plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint for declaratory 17 and injunctive relief against defendants Michael Pompeo, William Barr, Kevin McAleenan, the 18 United States Department of State, the United States Department of Homeland Security, the 19 United States Department of Justice, Devin Kennington, and the United States Embassy, Djibouti. 20 (Doc. No. 1.) That same day, plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency writ of mandamus and 21 preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 2.) Therein, plaintiffs alleged that plaintiff Muhjah 22 Abdoalnasar Mohammed Ahmed had not been issued a diversity visa for the 2019 application 23 cycle after having won the diversity visa lottery and completing all requirements to obtain the 24 diversity visas for her and her family. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 27, 2019, the previously 25 assigned district judge held that defendants unreasonably delayed processing of the plaintiffs’ 26 visa applications in light of the impending statutory deadlines and that all other requirements for 27 mandatory injunctive relief had been satisfied. (Doc. No. 13 at 7.) In so holding, the court 28 mandated the Department of State defendants to issue a decision on the visa applications before MADE fe □□□ LOT AEE SINAN MVOC PC he OY Ove 1 | the end of the fiscal year: September 30, 2019. Ud.) Over the next two days, defendants refused 2 | to adjudicate the Djibouti plaintiffs’ visa applications. (See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 17, 18, 20.) On 3 | September 29, 2019, the court found defendants in violation of its September 27, 2019 order and 4 | again ordered defendants to comply with the original court order requiring the government to 5 || adjudicate the matter pursuant to proper procedures. (Doc. No. 24.) On September 30, 2019, 6 | defendants submitted a status report informing the court that in the last few hours of the fiscal 7 | year, a consular officer in Djibouti had issued visas to plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 25 at 1.) 8 On December 12, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for lack 9 | of jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiffs’ mandamus lawsuit had been rendered moot because all the 10 | visas have been granted. (Doc. No. 30 at 2.) On January 31, 2020, plaintiffs filed a reply, 11 | indicating that they agree to dismiss this action because the court has granted the relief that they 12 | sought.! (Doc. No. 35.) Because plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the complaint on the grounds 13 | that they have obtained the relief sought and, therefore, the action has been rendered moot, the 14 | court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 15 | (2013) (“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes 16 | of Article I1]—when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 17 || cognizable interest in the outcome.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the aforementioned reasons, the court will grant defendants’ unopposed motion to 20 | dismiss. (Doc. No. 30.) The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this matter for 21 | the purposes of closure and to CLOSE THIS CASE. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ July 13, 2020 Yole A Lara 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 □ Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that she intends to raise claims in a separate action regarding several parties similarly situated to plaintiffs in this action. (Doc. No. 35.)