Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00422/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00422-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:0702 Administrative Procedure Act - Right of Review

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FILED 

AUG O 7 2019 

CLERK, U.S f.'HHr?!Cr COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTf<l.,C1 ,.>F CAL.WORN IA 

BY r-:-t?!f•Y •----~v~-..---,•- ,.,-,..,~.._~•-•- --- ; 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 RANJEETA CHEEMA, 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

V. 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP 

AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES; KIRSTJEN 

NIELSEN, Secretary Department 

of Homeland Security; L. 

FRANCIS CISSNA, Director 

USCIS; MELISSA MAXIM, 

Director San Diego Field Office, 

USCIS, 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 22 

Case No.: 19cv0422-WQH-BLM 

ORDER 

23 

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants L. Francis 

Cissna, Melissa Maxim, Kirstjen Nielsen, and United States Citizenship and Immigration 24 

Service. (ECF No. 4). 

25 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

26 

27 

On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff Ranjeeta Cheema initiated this action by filing a 

complaint against Defendants. (ECF No. 1 ). Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the denial 

28 

l 9cv0422-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:19-cv-00422-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 of her application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status by the United States 

2 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Administrative Procedure Act 

3 (AP A). Plaintiff claims that USCIS 's denial of her application was arbitrary and capricious 

4 and an abuse of discretion. 

5 On July 2, 2019, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the 

6 Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because on June 12, 2019, USC IS began removal 

7 proceedings against Plaintiff by filing a Notice to Appear (NTA) with the Immigration 

8 Court. (ECF No. 4). 

9 The record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to Defendants' 

10 Motion to Dismiss. 

11 II. DISCUSSION 

12 A district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss if the local rules 

13 provide for dismissal based on the failure to comply with the local rules by filing a response 

14 in opposition to the motion. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) 

15 ( affirming dismissal for failing to oppose a motion to dismiss based on a local rule 

16 providing that "[t]he failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and 

1 7 authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the 

18 motion"); Dickinson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 466 Fed. App'x 567 (9th Cir. 2012) 

19 (same). Local Rule 7 .1 provides, "If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner 

20 required by Civil Local Rule 7. l .e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting 

21 of a motion or other request for ruling by the court." S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(±)(3)( c ). 

22 "Although there is . . . a [public] policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the 

23 responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, 

24 and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics." In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 

25 1994) (quoting Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)) 

26 ( affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute). 

27 The docket reflects that Defendants obtained a hearing date of August 5, 2019 for 

28 the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 4). Pursuant to the local rules, Plaintiff was required to 

2 

l 9cv0422-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:19-cv-00422-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 file any response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss no later than fourteen days prior 

2 to the hearing date. The docket reflects that Plaintiff has failed to file a response to the 

3 Motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. The Court construes Plaintiffs failure to 

4 file a response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss as "a consent to the granting of' the 

5 Motion. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.l(f)(3)(c). The Court concludes that "the public's interest 

6 in expeditious resolution of litigation," "the court's need to manage its docket," and "the 

7 risk of prejudice to the defendants" weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss for 

8 failure to file a response in opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

9 III. CONCLUSION 

10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants is 

11 GRANTED. (ECF No. 4). The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall 

12 file any motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7 .1 

13 within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is issued. If Plaintiff does not file any motion 

14 for leave to amend within thirty days, the Clerk of Court shall close the ca 

15 

16 DATED: 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WILLIAM Q. HA YES 

United States District Judge 

3 

l 9cv0422-WQH-BLM 

Case 3:19-cv-00422-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3