[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-306557-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-306557-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","reply-in-support-of-defendants-motion-to-dismiss-alternatively-for-partial-summary-judgment-civil-action-no-119-cv-00445-rbw","Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - Alternatively for Partial Summary Judgment - Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00445-RBW","","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.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/reply-in-support-of-defendants-motion-to-dismiss-alternatively-for-partial-summary-judgment-civil-action-no-119-cv-00445-rbw/306557/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/reply-in-support-of-defendants-motion-to-dismiss-alternatively-for-partial-summary-judgment-civil-action-no-119-cv-00445-rbw/306557.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Seraphina","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-04","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What relief is the defendants’ motion seeking in this case?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Defendants seek dismissal of the claims, or alternatively partial summary judgment on the next-friend claims.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why do defendants argue the next-friend claims should be dismissed?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"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.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What is the basis for dismissing the personal claim (Count 9)?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Defendants argue the plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory relief for that personal claim.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},306557,1790173589,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":141,"read_time":85},962075114101,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e000253a75eb197efd?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1780044092746381165","Case 1:19-cv-00445-RBW Document 26 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 31  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  \nAHMED ALI MUTHANA, individually )  \nand as next friend of Hoda Muthana )  \nand Minor John Doe initials A.M., ))  \nPlaintiff, )  \n)  \nv. ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00445-RBW  \n)  \nMICHAEL POMPEO, et al., )  \n)  \n Defendants.  )  \nREPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT  \nCase 1:19-cv-00445-RBW Document 26 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 31  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nIntroduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1  \nArgument ........................................................................................................................................ 2  \nA. 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  \n1. Plaintiff Has Not Satisfied the Requirements to Proceed as a Next Friend .................. 2  \n2. Muthana Is Not and Was Never a U.S. Citizen ............................................................ 6  \n3. Plaintiff Has Not Alleged a Cause of Action to Challenge Muthana’s Passport Revocation .................................................................................................................. 14  \n4. Defendants Did Not Violate Procedural Due Process In Revoking Muthana’s Passport  \n16  \n5. Courts Lack Authority to Grant Citizenship Claims in Equity................................... 18  \n6. The United States Does Not Have a Duty to Facilitate Muthana’s Return ................ 21  \nB. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Personal Claim (Count 9) Because Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek Declaratory Relief on That Claim......................................................... 24  \nConclusion .................................................................................................................................... 25  \nCase 1:19-cv-00445-RBW Document 26 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 31  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES  \nCases  \nACLU v. Mattis, 286 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2017) ....................................................................... 4  \nAhmed Salem Bin Jaber v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2016) ....................... 3, 5, 6  \nAl-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) .............................................................. 2, 6  \nAli v. Dist. Dir., 743 Fed. App’x 354 (11th Cir. 2018) ............................................................... 8, 9  \nAli v. Dist. Dir., No. 15-cv-61820 (S.D. Fla. May. 10, 2016) ...................................................... 10  \nAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................. 13  \nAtem v. Ashcroft, 312 F. Supp. 2d 792 (E.D. Va. 2004) ............................................................... 20  \nBabbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) ...................................................................... 24, 25  \nChacoty v. Tillerson, 285 F. Supp. 3d 293 (D.D.C. 2018) ........................................................... 15  \nDeshaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) ................... 21, 22  \nFornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 21  \nHaig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) ............................................................................................... 17  \nHamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005)..................................................................... 23  \nHamdan v. Rumsfield, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ................................................................................. 23  \nHizam v. Kerry, 747 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2014) ...............................................","cbCaitHhKPkPaJUv","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitHhKPkPaJUv","pdf",231589,31,"English","# Introduction\n# Argument\n## A. Dismiss Next-Friend Claims (Counts 1–8) or Grant Summary Judgment\n## B. Dismiss Personal Claim (Count 9) for Lack of Standing\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What relief is the defendants’ motion seeking in this case?\",\"answer\":\"Defendants seek dismissal of the claims, or alternatively partial summary judgment on the next-friend claims.\"},{\"question\":\"Why do defendants argue the next-friend claims should be dismissed?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the basis for dismissing the personal claim (Count 9)?\",\"answer\":\"Defendants argue the plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory relief for that personal claim.\"}]","Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - Alternatively for Partial Summary Judgment - Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00445-RBW | PDF",1789838095]