Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05042/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05042-1/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 *Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1), Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor,

Alberto Gonzales, as the United States Attorney General.

ADR CERTIFICATION

No. C 07-5042 EDL

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SC 9990)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

MELANIE L. PROCTOR (CSBN 228971)

Melanie.Proctor@usdoj.gov

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-6730

FAX: (415) 436-6927

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HUEY-CHIANG LIOU,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,* United States

Attorney General; EMILIO GONZALEZ, 

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services; SCOTT SCHOOLS, United States

Attorney, California Northern District;

ROSEMARY MELVILLE, San Francisco 

District Director, U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services; ROBERT S.

MUELLER, Director of Federal Bureau of

Investigation,

Defendants

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5042 EDL

JOINT REQUEST TO BE EXEMPT FROM

FORMAL ADR PROCESS; PROPOSED

ORDER

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-05042-EDL Document 5 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:07-cv-05042-EDL Document 10 Filed 03/04/08 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

27

28

1

I, Melanie L. Proctor, hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any

signatures indicated by a “conformed” signature (/S/) within this efiled document.

ADR CERTIFICATION

No. C 07-5042 EDL 2

Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled

“Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California,” or the specified portions of

the ADR Unit’s Internet site <www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov>, discussed the available dispute

resolution options provided by the court and private entities, and considered whether this case might

benefit from any of them. 

Here, the parties agree that referral to a formal ADR process will not be beneficial because

this mandamus action is limited to Plaintiff’s request that this Court decide his application for

naturalization. Given the substance of the action and the lack of any potential middle ground, ADR

will only serve to multiply the proceedings and unnecessarily tax court resources. Accordingly,

pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-3(c), the parties request the case be removed from the ADR Multi-Option

Program and that they be excused from participating in the ADR phone conference and any further

formal ADR process.

Dated: December 19, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

MELANIE L. PROCTOR1

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: December 19, 2007 /s/ 

CINDY S. YAU

Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05042-EDL Document 5 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 2 of 2

March 4, 2008

Case 3:07-cv-05042-EDL Document 10 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2