Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01108/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01108-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL AVILA GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DONALD RIDING, OFFICER 

IN CHARGE,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1108 AWI WMW 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTINGCLERKOFCOURTTO

SERVE DOCUMENTS 

Petitioner Rafael Gonzales has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks to

compel Respondent to adjudicate his I-485 application for Permanent Residence. Petitioner

contends that the application has been on file with the USCIS (United States Citizenship and

Immigration Service) since July 2, 1999. Petitioner contends Respondent has delayed adjudicating

his request without a legitimate reason for the delay. Plaintiff requests that the court compel

Respondent to make a decision on this application.

The Mandamus and Venue Act of 1961 states: “The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United

States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus

is only available when (1) plaintiff's claim is clear and certain; (2) duty is ministerial and so plainly

prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Guerrero v.

Clinton, 157 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.1998); Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). Mandamus

is an extraordinary remedy. Patel, 134 F.3d at 931. 

The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition for writ of mandamus. Based

Case 1:05-cv-01108-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on the allegations made in the petition for writ of mandamus, the court finds a responsive pleading

from the USCIS or an entity representing the USCIS would be helpful in the adjudication of this

action. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Respondent SHALL submit a responsive pleading within thirty days of the date of

service of this order. Respondent SHALL include with the response any and all

documents Respondent believes are necessary for the resolution of the issues

presented in the petition.

2. Respondent SHALL submit a notice of appearance of attorney of record within thirty

days of the date of service of this order for the purpose of advising the Clerk of the

Court the proper attorney for service.

3. Petitioner MAY file any response to Respondent’s responsive pleading within fifteen

days after Respondent files his responsive pleading.

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order, along with a

copy of the September 10, 2005 petition for writ of mandamus, on the following:

A. The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California or his

representative;

B. Don Riding, Officer in Charge 

USCIS Fresno Sub Office 

1177 Fulton Mall 

Fresno, CA 93721

C. David Still, District Director USCIS

San Francisco District 

630 Sansome Street

San Francisco, CA 94111 

5. Because this action was not filed by a prisoner, does not concern a conviction or

sentence, and is not seeking habeas corpus relief, the Clerk of the Court is

DIRECTED to remove the “HC” designation previously given to this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01108-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2