Aleksandr Shambasov v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of DHS, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's mandamus action as moot after his asylum application was approved, and Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The court granted the motion as unopposed and alternatively for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as unopposed.“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted as unopposed.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule allowing for the grant of unopposed motions. Since the plaintiff failed to file an opposition within the time limit, the court was procedurally authorized to grant the motion without a full merits analysis, although it provided an alternative jurisdictional basis. |
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the case has become moot.“Alternatively, the motion is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the case has become moot.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the approval of the asylum application rendered the request for mandamus relief moot. Citing City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. and SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, the court properly applied the principle that federal courts lack jurisdiction over cases where the issues are no longer live. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly notes the lack of opposition and cites the appropriate local rule and case law for granting the motion on that basis. It also provides a correct alternative jurisdictional basis (mootness) with appropriate Supreme Court citations. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine unopposed dismissal based on mootness.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 ALEKSANDR SHAMBASOV, ) Case No. 24cv1463 L BJW ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. ) ) MOTION TO DISMISS 14 ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, ) Secretary of DHS, et al., ) 15 ) [Doc. No. 5] Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action as moot. 19 (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants 20 to adjudicate his pending Form I-589 asylum application. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants 21 contend that this action should be dismissed as moot because Plaintiff’s asylum 22 application has been approved. (See ECF No. 10-1.) Plaintiff has not filed an 23 opposition to Defendants’ motion, and the time to oppose has elapsed. See Civ. Local 24 R. 7.1(e)(2). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted as unopposed. See Civ. 25 Loc. Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). 26 Alternatively, the motion is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the 27 case has become moot. See City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (“A 28 case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live[.]’”); SEC v. Med. Comm. 1! for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 407 (1972) (federal courts lack jurisdiction over moot cases). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5|| Dated: May 26, 2026 , ° 7 H . James Lorenz United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 SA. .1AL9 T □□□