Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00883/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00883-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 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

Case No. C 07-00883 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

*E-FILED 3/1/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YUMIN LIU AND KEVIN T. DAI,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-00883 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 12, 2007, plaintiff Kevin T. Dai and his parent, Yumin Liu, filed a

“Complaint For Writ in the Nature of Mandamus” against defendant Michael Chertoff, Secretary

of the Department of Homeland Security, and other government officials in their official

capacities. Plaintiffs allege defendants have failed to process Dai’s I-485 application in a timely

manner, apparently as a result of delays in obtaining a completed background check clearance

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, defendants have

violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C § 701 et. seq. Plaintiffs request that this

Court enter an order compelling defendants to act upon Dai’s application. Good cause

Case 5:07-cv-00883-RS Document 4 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 07-00883 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the complaint and a copy of this

Order upon counsel for Defendants, the Office of the United States Attorney. The Clerk of the

Court also shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiffs’ counsel.

(2) Defendants shall, within sixty (60) days after receiving service of the complaint,

file and serve upon Plaintiffs an answer, showing cause why the relief prayed for should not be

granted. At the time the answer is filed, Defendants shall lodge with the Court all records

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the complaint. If Defendants contend that

Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to any ground for relief asserted in

the complaint, Defendants shall specify what administrative remedy remains available to

Plaintiffs. If Defendants waive or concede the issue of exhaustion, Defendants shall so state in

their answer. 

(3) Plaintiffs may file a response to the matters raised in the answer within twenty

(20) days after receiving the answer. 

(4) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the matter will be deemed submitted upon

the filing of the response or upon the expiration of time to file a response.

 (5) No later than the time their respective responses hereunder are due, the parties

shall make their determination regarding the issue of consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate

Judge and file the appropriate form. In the event any party declines to consent to the jurisdiction

of the Magistrate Judge, this action will be reassigned to a District Judge for further proceedings.

Case 5:07-cv-00883-RS Document 4 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. C 07-00883 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(6) The Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR deadlines dated

February 12, 2007, in this action is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/1/07 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00883-RS Document 4 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 3