MATTHEW MULLER V. USA, No. 18-16693 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW MULLER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16693 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00376-RCCPSOT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, named as United States, et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Matthew Muller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional claims and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * 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). Muller’s requests for oral argument are denied. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009) (questions of our own jurisdiction); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We dismiss the appeal as moot. Muller seeks injunctive relief delaying his extradition and allowing a forensic psychologist to examine him in prison. While this case was pending on appeal, Muller was extradited from U.S. Penitentiary Tucson, Arizona. Because we cannot grant the relief Muller requests, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted). To the extent Muller’s claims relate to actions defendants might take if Muller returns to U.S. Penitentiary Tucson in the future, his claims are not ripe. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Muller’s motion for appointment of counsel for appellees is denied. 2 18-16693 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). DISMISSED. 3 18-16693

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.