Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00329/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00329-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NOMAN SHAHEED, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

USCIS Sacramento Field Office, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:24-cv-0329-TLN-SCR 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The complaint 

and request to proceed in forma pauperis were filed on January 29, 2024. On September 17, 

2024, this Court issued an order screening the complaint pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2), and 

granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The order further directed Plaintiff to return 

the necessary documents for completion of service to the United States Marshal and specified the 

documents that should be provided. ECF No. 4 at 3-4. The Court provided a deadline of 15 days 

and directed Plaintiff to “file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted 

to the United States Marshal.” Id. at 3. The order further cautioned that failure to comply “may 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” Id. at 4. 

 On November 26, 2024, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to 

Case 2:24-cv-00329-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/20/24 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 

show cause, in writing, within 14 days why the failure to file the required statement that service 

documents were provided to the United States Marshal should not result in a recommendation 

that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

ECF No. 7. The Order warned that if Plaintiff failed to respond the Court would recommend 

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Local Rule 110. More than 14 days 

have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response. 

In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 

considered “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to 

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “The public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of 

dismissal, particularly given the heavy caseload in this District. The third factor is neutral given 

that Defendants have not yet appeared, but “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that 

witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. The Court has considered 

less drastic alternatives and concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for 

lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 

Local Rule 110. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00329-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/20/24 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 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 19, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00329-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 3