Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07916/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07916-0/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 06-07916 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

*E-FILED 1/3/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHUN YUET YEUNG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-07916 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On December 27, 2006, plaintiff Chun Yuet Yeung, appearing through counsel, filed a

“Complaint For Writ in the Nature of Mandamus & Declaratory Judgment” against defendants

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Emilio T. Gonzalez,

Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”); Christina Poulos,

Acting Director of the California Service Center of the CIS; and Robert S. Mueller, III, Director

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Plaintiff alleges defendants have failed to process her I-485 application in a timely

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

Case 5:06-cv-07916-RS Document 3 Filed 01/03/07 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 06-07916 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, defendants have

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

Court enter an order directing defendants to adjudicate her application and provide her with a

notice of decision. Good 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 Plaintiff’s counsel.

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

file and serve upon Plaintiff 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

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to any ground for relief asserted in the

complaint, Defendants shall specify what administrative remedy remains available to Plaintiff. 

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

answer. 

(3) Plaintiff 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 5:06-cv-07916-RS Document 3 Filed 01/03/07 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 06-07916 RS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

December 27, 2006 in this action is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07916-RS Document 3 Filed 01/03/07 Page 3 of 3