NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIRSAD HAJRO; JAMES R. MAYOCK, No. 17-15984 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-01350-NC v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; T. DIANE CEJKA, Director, USCIS National Records Center; ROSEMARY MELVILLE, USCIS District Director of San Francisco; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW WHITAKER, acting Attorney General, Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted November 14, 2018** San Francisco, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BUCKLO,*** District Judge. In a previous iteration of this case before our court, Defendants-Appellees United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and federal officer co- defendants (USCIS) appealed the district court’s decision in favor of Plaintiffs- Appellants Mirsad Hajro and James Mayock. The prior panel reversed and remanded in part. Hajro v. USCIS, 811 F.3d 1086, 1108 (9th Cir. 2015). On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to USCIS. Appellants now challenge the district court’s denial of their second motion to amend their complaint by substituting plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 (SAC) and the dismissal of their pattern or practice claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The district court did not err in concluding that Mayock lacked standing to bring a pattern or practice claim. In its opinion, the prior panel clarified the requirements to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) pattern or practice claim. Id. at 1103. The prior panel held that Mayock had not satisfied the second and third prongs of that rule. Id. at 1106. It remanded the case with instructions that Mayock “must show that he personally filed a request, and that request was delayed” in order to *** The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 2 establish personal harm under the second prong. Id.; see also id. (“Mayock must prove that he was a requester subject to delayed FOIA requests at the time he filed his complaint.”). Because Mayock failed to submit evidence demonstrating that he had submitted a FOIA request when Plaintiffs’ complaint or amended complaint were filed, he did not show that he was personally harmed by USCIS’s alleged FOIA violations. Appellants’ argument does more to hurt than help their cause. They contend that Mayock’s declaration, which “confirm[s] that Mayock has filed FOIA requests and that USCIS has never produced the records within the statutory time framework,” demonstrates that Mayock was personally harmed. That declaration, however, is the same declaration that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals