D.'Uryyah Ajamu v. United States Postal Service, No. 14-10258 (11th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 14-10258 Date Filed: 07/28/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10258 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-00450-JA-KRS D. URYYAH AJAMU, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DENISE Y. WILLIS, et al., Defendants, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (July 28, 2014) Case: 14-10258 Date Filed: 07/28/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Before PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: D. Uryyah Ajamu appeals pro se the dismissal of his amended complaint against the United States Postal Service for violating the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and for withholding information because of discriminatory animus. The district court dismissed Ajamu s amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. The district court correctly dismissed Ajamu s amended complaint. Ajamu alleged that the Service violated the Act by withholding an individual s address, but Ajamu attached to his original complaint a response in which the Service provided the individual s last known address. Ajamu s claim about a violation of the Act became moot when the Service produced the address. See Lovell v. Alderete, 630 F.2d 428, 430 31 (5th Cir. 1980). And the Service was not liable for the individual s supposed refusal to update her address. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 162, 95 S. Ct. 1504, 1522 (1975). Ajamu also alleged that the Service withheld the mailing address because of his race, color, nationality, and faith, but the district court correctly ruled that claim was barred by sovereign immunity, see Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 484, 126 S. Ct. 1252, 1256 (2006). We AFFIRM the dismissal of Ajamu s amended complaint. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.