Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00759-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YIFAN LU, NO. CIV.S-06-0759 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, EMILIO T.

GONZALES, SUSAN M. CURDA,

and ROBERT S. MUELLER, III

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on July 21, 2006, for

hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss this action on the grounds

that it is now moot. Assistant United States Attorney Audrey B.

Hemesath appeared on behalf of defendants. Plaintiff Yifan Lu did

not appear at the hearing and filed no opposition to the pending

motion to dismiss.

On April 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint in this

action seeking to compel the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration

Services (BCIS) to process her application and adjust her status to

Case 2:06-cv-00759-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 07/26/06 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

2

that of lawful permanent resident. As of the date of the hearing,

plaintiff’s immigration status had been modified as requested. In

this regard, defendants have submitted documentation establishing

that plaintiff’s application was granted and approved by BCIS on May

3, 2006. Because there can be no further effective relief granted by

this court, the action has been rendered moot. Garcia v. Lawn, 805

F.2d 1400, 1403 (9th Cir. 1986); see also City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M.,

529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000). Therefore, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS

that defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the action is

moot be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, either party

may file written objections with the court. Such a document should

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the district court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 25, 2006.

DAD:im

ddad1\orders.prose\lu0759.f&r.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-00759-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2