Jamal Tarhuni v. Jefferson Sessions, 692 F. App'x 477

Jamal Tarhuni sued seeking relief related to placement on the Terrorism Screening Database (TSDB); district court treated defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion as a converted summary-judgment motion and dismissed the action as moot with prejudice.
The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Tarhuni appealed the dismissal.
Defendants argued the case was moot because removal from the TSDB would provide effective relief; Tarhuni did not seek a specific form of relief (removal from TSDB) in his amended complaint or raise it in district court.
The panel concluded the district court erred in dismissing with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and vacated that dismissal.
The Ninth Circuit remanded and instructed the district court to consider whether to grant leave to amend under Foman v. Davis factors (delay, bad faith, prior amendments, prejudice, futility).
The court did not decide whether the voluntary cessation mootness exception applies to Tarhuni’s substantive due process claim; costs were taxed to defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper and should have been with or without prejudice	Tarhuni argued dismissal was improper and should not have been with prejudice	Defendants maintained the case was moot and dismissal was appropriate	Court held the district court erred to dismiss with prejudice; vacated dismissal and remanded
Whether the court could provide "effective relief" (e.g., ordering removal from TSDB) making the case moot	Tarhuni did not seek TSDB removal in his amended complaint or raise it below	Defendants argued removal from TSDB would render the suit moot by providing effective relief	Court noted such relief can be effective but Tarhuni never requested it in district court; district court may not sua sponte grant it; remand to consider leave to amend
Whether the district court properly converted the 12(b)(1) motion into summary judgment by considering outside materials	Tarhuni implicitly challenges procedural handling	Defendants relied on outside materials to argue lack of jurisdiction	Court observed conversion was unnecessary because courts may consider outside evidence on 12(b)(1); error not outcome-determinative here
Whether the voluntary cessation mootness exception applies to the substantive due process claim	Tarhuni argued voluntary cessation could keep claim alive	Defendants argued cessation moots the claim	Court expressed no view and left the question open for the district court on remand

Fleck & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 471 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and the appropriate form of dismissal)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional determinations and mootness principles)
Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) (discusses when a court can provide effective relief for mootness analysis)
Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizes removal from watchlists as possible effective relief)
Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts cannot act as a party’s lawyer; plaintiffs must request relief)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors governing leave to amend pleadings)
Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2009) (a court may consider extrinsic evidence when resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion)