United States v. 2020-01-13 | 18-16693 | MATTHEW MULLER V. USA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW MULLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, named
as United States, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16693

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00376-RCC-
PSOT

MEMORANDUM
*

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.
FILED

JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-16693
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.

3 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.