UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
April 23, 2008
WEIMING JIANG, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ROBERT S. MUELLER III, DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEFENDANTS.
Crtrm: 10, 19th Floor
Date: April 25, 2008
Time: 2:00 p.m.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; PROPOSED ORDER
1. Jurisdiction and Service: Plaintiff brought this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361 and 2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the Administrative Procedure Act. All parties have been served. Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Facts: On June 27, 2006, Plaintiff applied for naturalization. Plaintiff's name check is still pending with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; accordingly, he has not yet been interviewed. On January 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint.
3. Legal Issues: Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff asks the Court to determine whether the delay at issue is unreasonable.
a. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
On March 13, 2008, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. On March 18, 2008, Defendants requested the Court to hold Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending a decision on their anticipated motion to dismiss. The Court has granted that request.
b. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
On March 21, 2008, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Defendants have replied to that opposition.
Argument will be heard on April 25, 2008.
5. Amendment of Pleadings: None.
6. Evidence Preservation: None.
7. Disclosures: The parties agree that this Court's review will be confined to the administrative record and therefore this proceeding is exempt from the initial disclosure requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
8. Discovery: There has been no discovery to date and the parties believe this matter can be resolved without discovery. No experts will be designated.
9. Class Actions: Not applicable.
10. Related Cases: None.
11. Relief: Plaintiff asks that the Court compel Defendants to adjudicate his application for naturalization, and asks for an award of attorneys' fees. This case does not involve damages.
12. Settlement and ADR: The Court granted the parties' Joint Request to Be Exempt From Formal ADR on April 14, 2008.
13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes: The parties do not consent to assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge.
14. Other References: None.
15. Narrowing of Issues: None.
16. Expedited Schedule: The parties believe this matter can be solved through the motions.
17. Scheduling: If the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, within thirty (30) days of that order, Defendants will file an opposition and cross motion to Plaintiff's stayed motion for summary judgment, and notice a hearing date in accordance with the local rules.
18. Trial: None.
19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: None.
20. Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of this matter: None.
Dated: April 18, 2008
Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney
MELANIE L. PROCTOR*fn1 Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
Dated: April 18, 2008
JUSTIN WANG Attorney for Plaintiff
Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order are hereby adopted by the Court as the Case Management Order for the case.
SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge