Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - Alternatively for Partial Summary Judgment - Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00445-RBW

Sep 19, 2026

Reply in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, or alternatively for partial summary judgment, in civil action 1:19-cv-00445-RBW before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The filing addresses plaintiff Ahmed Ali Muthana’s next-friend claims, arguing the next-friend requirements are unmet, Muthana is not and was never a U.S. citizen, and key pleading and due process theories fail, including limits on equitable citizenship claims. It further argues plaintiff lacks standing for declaratory relief on a personal claim and seeks dismissal or judgment for defendants.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages31

Reading Time11 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Argument

A. Dismiss Next-Friend Claims (Counts 1–8) or Grant Summary Judgment

B. Dismiss Personal Claim (Count 9) for Lack of Standing

Conclusion

Case 1:19-cv-00445-RBW Document 26 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AHMED ALI MUTHANA, individually ) and as next friend of Hoda Muthana ) and Minor John Doe initials A.M., )) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00445-RBW ) MICHAEL POMPEO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 1:19-cv-00445-RBW Document 26 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 2 A. The Court Should Dismiss All of Plaintiff’s Next-Friend Claims (Counts 1–8) or, in the Alternative, Grant Summary Judgment to Defendants on Those Claims ........................... 2 1. Plaintiff Has Not Satisfied the Requirements to Proceed as a Next Friend .................. 2 2. Muthana Is Not and Was Never a U.S. Citizen ............................................................ 6 3. Plaintiff Has Not Alleged a Cause of Action to Challenge Muthana’s Passport Revocation .................................................................................................................. 14 4. Defendants Did Not Violate Procedural Due Process In Revoking Muthana’s Passport 16 5. Courts Lack Authority to Grant Citizenship Claims in Equity................................... 18 6. The United States Does Not Have a Duty to Facilitate Muthana’s Return ................ 21 B. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Personal Claim (Count 9) Because Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek Declaratory Relief on That Claim......................................................... 24 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 25 Case 1:19-cv-00445-RBW Document 26 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 31 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases ACLU v. Mattis, 286 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2017) ....................................................................... 4 Ahmed Salem Bin Jaber v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2016) ....................... 3, 5, 6 Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) .............................................................. 2, 6 Ali v. Dist. Dir., 743 Fed. App’x 354 (11th Cir. 2018) ............................................................... 8, 9 Ali v. Dist. Dir., No. 15-cv-61820 (S.D. Fla. May. 10, 2016) ...................................................... 10 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................. 13 Atem v. Ashcroft, 312 F. Supp. 2d 792 (E.D. Va. 2004) ............................................................... 20 Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) ...................................................................... 24, 25 Chacoty v. Tillerson, 285 F. Supp. 3d 293 (D.D.C. 2018) ........................................................... 15 Deshaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) ................... 21, 22 Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 21 Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) ............................................................................................... 17 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005)..................................................................... 23 Hamdan v. Rumsfield, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ................................................................................. 23 Hizam v. Kerry, 747 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2014) ...............................................

FAQs

What relief is the defendants’ motion seeking in this case?

Defendants seek dismissal of the claims, or alternatively partial summary judgment on the next-friend claims.

Why do defendants argue the next-friend claims should be dismissed?

Defendants argue the requirements to proceed as a next friend are not satisfied and that additional substantive and procedural challenges fail, including issues relating to citizenship status and alleged due process.

What is the basis for dismissing the personal claim (Count 9)?

Defendants argue the plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory relief for that personal claim.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Seraphina