Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CHIRAG PATEL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-303 (MTT)
)
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 	)
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. ECF 6. In an effort to afford Patel, who is
proceeding pro se, adequate notice and time to respond to the Defendant’s motion, the
following notice is given. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1985). If
Patel wishes to respond, he must do so no later than TWENTY-ONE DAYS from the
receipt of this Order.1
If Patel does not timely respond to the motion to dismiss, the Court may dismiss
this action. Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are
normally decided on briefs. Patel may submit his argument to this Court by filing a brief
in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Unless the Court has granted prior permission,
any brief should not exceed twenty pages. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4.
1 The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the motion to dismiss and its exhibits (ECF 6) to Patel at his
last known address. Thereafter, all notices or other papers may be served on Patel directly by mail at his
last known address.
Case 5:25-cv-00303-MTT Document 10 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2

-2-
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes the Court to dismiss claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged,
“the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that jurisdiction exists.” OSI, Inc. v. United States,
285 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir. 2002). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) generally takes one of
two forms—a facial attack or a factual attack. Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs.
M.D.'s, 104 F.3d 1256, 1260-61 (11th Cir.1997). “A facial attack on the complaint
requires the court merely to look and see if the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of
subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the
purposes of the motion.” Stalley v. Orlando Reg'l Heathcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229,
1232-33 (11th Cir. 2008). A factual attack, however, “challenges the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction using material extrinsic from the pleadings, such as affidavits
or testimony.” Id. at 1233. “[I]f events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or
an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful
relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.” Soliman v. U.S. ex rel. INS, 296
F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation modified).
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of December, 2025.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00303-MTT Document 10 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2