United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 21-5193 September Term, 2022 FILED ON: MARCH 23, 2023 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, APPELLANT v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, APPELLEE Consolidated with 22-5112 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:19-cv-02055) (No. 1:17-cv-02731) Before: KATSAS and CHILDS, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge JUDGMENT The Court considered this appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on the record and the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. R. 34(j). The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). For the following reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the orders of the district court, filed on September 24, 2020, September 29, 2020, and March 1, 2022, be affirmed. Rolando Jimenez is a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employee who sued the Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, in 2017 (Jimenez I) and 2019 (Jimenez II). 1 His lawsuits raised a multitude of employment discrimination and 1 The district court entered orders in Jimenez I on September 24, 2020, and March 1, 2022. Though the district court entered orders in Jimenez I roughly eighteen months apart, the claims at issue all 1 retaliation claims. The district court initially dismissed many of the claims for failure to state a claim or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court later granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, including on four claims from Jimenez I, and one claim from Jimenez II. Importantly, the district court: (1) granted summary judgment prior to discovery on several of the claims; and (2) accepted the Government’s statement of undisputed facts as admitted for those claims, because Jimenez’s counsel failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) and Local Rule 7(h)(1). On appeal, Jimenez challenges the district court’s decisions to: (a) grant summary judgment before discovery; (b) grant summary judgment despite alleged evidence of pretext; and (c) deny subsequent motions to alter or amend those judgments. We review—and reject—each of these challenges. I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) governs when a district court may rule on motions for summary judgment prior to discovery, and we review such rulings for an abuse of discretion. Jeffries v. Barr, 965 F.3d 843, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2020); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), (d). The district court acted within its discretion when it granted the Government’s motions for summary judgment prior to discovery in this case. Rule 56(d) required Jimenez’s trial counsel to submit affidavits or declarations explaining why counsel could not present necessary facts to oppose the Government’s motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). At a status conference, the district court unequivocally instructed trial counsel to file this supporting documentation, and the district court waited almost one year before ruling on the motions. Trial counsel was also alerted about the obligation to file …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals