Ike v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al, No. 3:2020cv03743 - Document 31 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendants' alternative motionto dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismisses this action without prejudice by judgment. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 8/18/2021) (ygl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ike v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al Case 3:20-cv-03743-D Document 31 Filed 08/18/21 Doc. 31 Page 1 of 2 PageID 312 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JUSTICE ONYEALISI IKE, § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-3743-D VS. § § UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND § IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In a May 27, 2021 memorandum opinion and order, the court granted defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), raising two grounds for dismissal sua sponte, and granting plaintiff 21 days to file an opposition response to those grounds. See Ike v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (Ike), 2021 WL 2167054, at *5-8 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2021) (Fitzwater, J.). The court sought to implement a fair procedure by allowing plaintiff “to file a brief that sets out his opposition to dismissing his Fifth Amendment due process and declaratory judgment claims.” Id. at *7. But plaintiff has not filed an opposition response, and the deadline for doing so has elapsed. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Ike, the court grants defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismisses this action without Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-03743-D Document 31 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 313 prejudice by judgment filed today.* SO ORDERED. August 18, 2021. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR JUDGE * Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly. -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.
