Kwok Sze, Appellant v. John F. Kelly, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Kwok Sze, Appellant v. John F. Kelly, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Appellees

No. 16-5090

Decided: February 21, 2017

BEFORE: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Millett, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel or amicus; the motion for summary affirmance; appellant's brief; appellant's response to the court's October 3, 2016 order; and the motion to govern future proceedings, it is

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel or amicus be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's claims for equitable relief arising from his inability to renounce his United States citizenship while incarcerated, including his claims against appellee Annucci, be dismissed as moot. These claims for relief were mooted by appellant's release. See Scott v. District of Columbia, 139 F.3d 940, 941 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 851 (U.S. Oct. 5, 1998). Although appellant now attempts to seek monetary damages, a claim for monetary damages was not properly raised before the district court and will not be considered for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Stover, 329 F.3d 859, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2003). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted with respect to the district court's dismissal of appellant's claim for declaratory relief. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant seeks a declaration that he has successfully renounced his citizenship, but he has not completed the renunciation process and received a final decision on his request from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Thus, the current dispute lacks sufficient “immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 126 (2007).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Copied to clipboard