Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00239/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00239-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAIMING LIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director )

of USCIS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-00239-AWI-SMS

ORDER DETERMINING THAT

PLAINTIFF STATES A CLAIM

SUFFICIENT FOR SERVICE

(DOC. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

SEND SPECIFIED SERVICE

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF WITH

THIS ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO

THE COURT 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

FORWARD ANY SERVICE DOCUMENTS

SUBMITTED TO THE MARSHAL FOR

SERVICE OF PROCESS

ORDER DIRECTING THE MARSHAL

TO SERVE DEFENDANT UPON

MARSHAL’S RECEIPT OF

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a

civil action in this Court. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules

72-302(c) and 72-303.

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 9
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

2

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on

February 14, 2007. 

I. Screening the Complaint

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and

state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 9
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

3

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. th

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6 Cir. 1998). th

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, th

or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears

beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts,

consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim or

claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 9
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

4

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

Here, Plaintiff alleges in the two-page complaint that she

submitted an immigration application (understood from the context

to constitute an application for naturalization) in December 2003

at Fresno INS; she interviewed with an officer on May 18, 2004.

She believed that she complied with the fingerprinting process

and has been awaiting approval of her green card since June 5,

2004, when she repeated her fingerprinting. She inquired at the

Fresno INS office in July 2004 and received a letter in August

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 4 of 9
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

 Although Plaintiff states that she felt that she had been “discriminated,” she appears to be referring to the 1

faster processing of her husband’s application. She states no ground or basis for discrimination. The clear gist of her

complaint is the length of time it has taken Defendants to process her application and to give her a green card.

5

2004 stating that approval was pending FBI security check; she

has not heard anything from INS except a renewal of

fingerprinting in August 2006. She went to the Fresno INS office

in March 2005, August 2005, October 2005, December 2005, and

numerous times in 2006. Her attempts to reach national customer

service were not answered; a representative at the Fresno office

told Plaintiff that there is no deadline and nothing they can do

pending the FBI security check. She seeks to ascertain that she

has not been discriminated against and issuance of a green card. 1

It appears that Plaintiff is alleging that she has exhausted

her recourse within the agency.

Plaintiff’s claim is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which

states:

If there is a failure to make a determination

under section 1446 of this title before the end of the

120-day period after the date on which the examination

is conducted under such section, the applicant may

apply to the United States district court for the

district in which the applicant resides for a hearing

on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the

matter and may either determine the matter or remand

the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the

Service to determine the matter.

Section 1446 provides for the examination of the application and

a determination of the application thereafter. 

Plaintiff also proceeds pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c),

which provides generally for judicial review of a denial of an

application for naturalization in the District Court.

Plaintiff seeks relief from the court pursuant to § 1446.

However, if Plaintiff’s concern is adjustment of status and not

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 5 of 9
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

6

naturalization, it is established that an applicant for permanent

resident status may seek relief with respect to that process as

well pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus) if administrative

remedies have been exhausted and a clear, nondiscretionary duty

is owed. Osunsanya v. United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services, 2007 WL 484864 (No. 06-10625 RWZ, D. MA 2007) (two-year

wait on FBI background check in the course of application for

permanent resident status); Przhebelskaya v. United States Bureau

of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 338 F.Supp.2d 399

(E.D.N.Y. 2004. Further, in some circumstances, it is permissible

to seek relief in the form of requiring distribution of green

cards. See, Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433 (2d Cir. 1991)

(action by lawful permanent residents to require INS to issue

cards and documentation); Santillan v. Gonzales, 2005 WL 1592872

(No. C 04-2686 MHP, N.D.Ca. July 1, 2005) (class action by

persons who had been or would have been granted lawful permanent

resident status by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of

Immigration Review to compel issuance of documentation). It

appears because of Plaintiff’s citation of law concerning

naturalization applications that Plaintiff is complaining of

delay in failure to process an application for naturalization,

including the issuance of the certificate of alien registration

or alien receipt card that “shall be issued” to every alien in

the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted, in

such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed

under regulations issued by the Attorney General. See, 8 U.S.C. §

1304(e).

//

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 6 of 9
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

7

The court notes that the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS), formerly an agency within the Department of

Justice, was formally dissolved as of March 1, 2003, and its

functions and authority were allocated primarily to the newly

established Department of Homeland Security (DHS); within the

DHS, the former INS functions relating to such immigration

benefits and services, including processing of applications for

adjustment of status and naturalization, were allocated to the

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). 7 Gordon,

Mailman, and Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure, §96.06 n.

1 (Matthew Bender 2006).

Plaintiff has named the director of homeland security, the

director of the CIS, the director of the FBI, the attorney

general, and the office of the general counsel of the department

of homeland security. It does not appear that the director of the

FBI has responsibility for any application of Plaintiff presently

pending before the immigration authorities, but Plaintiff

apparently seeks relief with respect to fingerprinting that is

allegedly being performed by the FBI.

II. Service of the Complaint

A review of the complaint reveals that if the pro se

Plaintiff’s allegations are liberally construed in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 756

(9 Cir. 2003), Plaintiff has alleged facts that might support a th

claim entitling her to relief against Defendants Emilio T.

Gonzalez, Director of U.S. CIS (USCIS); Robert S. Mueller, III,

Director of the FBI; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security; and Alberto R. Gonzales, United

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

States Attorney General. It does not appear that Plaintiff has

stated a claim against the Office of the General Counsel of the

Department of Homeland Security separate and apart from the claim

against the secretary.

Accordingly, the entire action does not fail to state a

claim for relief, and the Court will proceed to order the

complaint served on behalf of Plaintiff.

A. Directions to the Marshal

Accordingly, when appropriate service documents are

submitted to the Court and forwarded to the Marshal, the United

States Marshal SHALL SERVE the complaint.

B. Directions to the Clerk and to Plaintiff 

Service IS appropriate for the following defendants: Emilio

T. Gonzalez, Director of U.S. CIS (USCIS); Robert S. Mueller,

III, Director of the FBI; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security; and Alberto R. Gonzales, United

States Attorney General. 

Accordingly, 

1) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff four USM-285

form, four summons, an instruction sheet, a notice of submission

of documents form, and one copy of the complaint filed in this

Court on February 14, 2007;

2) Within thirty days from the date of service of this

order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission

of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the Court with

the following documents:

//

/

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant

listed above; and 

c. Five copies of the endorsed complaint filed in

this Court. 

Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need 

not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the documents described above, the Clerk of

the Court SHALL FORWARD them to the United States Marshal to

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in

a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey this

Court’s order. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2007 /s/ Sandra M.

Icido3Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00239-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 9 of 9