UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JACK STONE, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 21-3244 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, : 17, 18, 22 : UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF : STATE, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS PREDATING FINAL AGENCY ACTION AND FILING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jack Stone, proceeding pro se, claims that the United States Embassy in Tokyo and the Department of State (collectively, “Defendants”) have unlawfully refused to issue citizenship and immigration documents that he requested for his two putative children and wife. Following submission of his complaint in the instant matter on December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a series of motions, “declarations,” and other filings, some of which repeated Plaintiff’s challenges to Defendants’ requirements for issuing those documents and his demands that Defendants be compelled to provide the documents. Others raised new claims and sought relief not included in Plaintiff’s complaint. On February 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions (“Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff and Defendants submitted the aforementioned filings prior to the Court’s minute order on April 18, 2022 construing one of Plaintiff’s declarations as a motion to file a supplemental pleading challenging Defendants’ actions under the Administrative Procedure Act 1 (“APA”), and prior to Defendants filing the administrative record on May 18, 2022. The Court will now construe Plaintiff’s additional filings containing new claims and requests for relief as motions for leave to amend the complaint. However, the Court will also, for the reasons explained below: (1) deny Plaintiff’s premature motions predating Defendants’ final agency action and filing of the administrative record (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 22); (2) deny Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend the complaint; and (3) grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14), without prejudice to the Court’s consideration of these motions on the merits as to the claims that remain live. As Plaintiff’s claims related to the passports, Consular Report of Birth Abroad (“CRBA”), and Social Security number remain live as described below, the Court will in a separate opinion rule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) as to the merits of Plaintiff’s remaining claims. II. BACKGROUND The instant case comes to this Court with a complicated factual history that has been recounted in part in this Court’s opinions in Plaintiff’s prior case, Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo (“Stone I”), No. 19-3273, which arose out of facts and allegations overlapping substantially with those here. See, e.g., Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo, No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 4260711 (D.D.C. July 24, 2020); Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo, No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 6701078 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2020); Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo, No. 19-3273, 2020 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals