Vaibhav Singh Tokas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION VAIBHAV SINGH TOKAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-01754-SEP ) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ) SERVICES, et al., ) ) Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Doc. [7]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) allows a court to correct mistakes in the time immediately following judgment. “Rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting ‘manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1998)).

Plaintiff filed suit seeking an Order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate his immigration petition “within a reasonable time set by the Court.” Doc. [1] at 7. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, explaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 deprives it of subject matter jurisdiction over discretionary decisions by USCIS, including whether to delay an adjudication like the one at issue here. Doc. [6] at 3. Plaintiff alleges that dismissing with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was improper, and that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. Doc. [7] at 4.

Though 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) asserts that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review” the denial of discretionary relief at issue here, Plaintiff is correct that a “district court is generally barred from dismissing a case with prejudice if it concludes subject matter jurisdiction is absent.”

County of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464 (8th Cir. 2004); see also Slappendel v. Miller, 2022 WL 17333382, at *1 (8th Cir. Nov. 30, 2022) (modifying dismissal to be without prejudice where court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over petition challenging unreviewable denial of immigration waiver); Roth v. United States, 476 F. App’x 95 (8th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction . . . but we clarify that the judgment is without prejudice.”) (internal citations omitted). The dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be amended to be without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Doc. [7], is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Memorandum and Order, Doc. [6], is VACATED to the extent it dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling, Doc. [8], is DENIED as moot.

A separate Order of Dismissal will issue herewith.

Dated this 24th day of April, 2026. ant Msg UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE