Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00649-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

SERGEI PORTNOY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIV S-05-0649 DFL KJM PS 

vs.

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary

judgment. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

In this case, plaintiffs assert various claims challenging actions by the Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services. Defendants move for summary judgment, contending this

court is without jurisdiction to hear the merits of plaintiff Elena Portnoy’s challenge to her order

of removal and that the government is entitled to summary judgment on the remaining claims.

Elena Portnoy challenges her final removal order. All challenges to final orders of

removal are to be filed directly in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Plaintiff has

filed such a petition in the Ninth Circuit, where her case is pending. See Kudinova v. Gonzales,

No. 05-76377 (9th Cir. filed Nov. 8, 2005). As this court is without jurisdiction, plaintiff’s claim

Case 2:05-cv-00649-DFL -KJM Document 31 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 4
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 The Administrative Record has been lodged with this court. 1

2

cannot be maintained here and should be dismissed. 

Both plaintiffs also challenge the denial of a petition made by plaintiff Sergei

Portnoy in 2000 to accord plaintiff Elena Portnoy immediate relative status as the spouse of a

United States citizen. Administrative Record (“AR”) 13. In conjunction with that petition, 1

plaintiff Elena Portnoy filed an application to adjust her status to become a lawful permanent

resident. AR 22-26. The petition and application were denied in July 2001, because plaintiffs

failed to provide evidence of a divorce from the husband to whom plaintiff Elena Portnoy

indicated she was married when she applied for a visa to enter the United States. AR 40-43, 159-

162. The arguments raised by plaintiffs in the instant action have been fully adjudicated by

plaintiffs in an action they filed in the Northern District of California, Portnoy v. United States,

No. C-03-4238 MJJ slip op. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2005). AR 151-172. This claim therefore is

barred under the principles of res judicata. Moreover, plaintiffs never provided the requested

information, did not file a waiver application, did not file a motion to reopen and did not file a

new petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a). Plaintiffs thus have failed to exhaust their administrative

remedies, as required. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim. 

Plaintiffs also allege a claim in connection with the denial of plaintiff Elena

Portnoy’s application for naturalization. AR 173-182. The application was denied because

plaintiff failed to provide evidence she was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. AR 205-

206. Reviewing the record de novo, the court finds no error in the denial of plaintiff’s

application for naturalization. See 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(c). Plaintiff cannot overcome her failure to

establish the statutory prerequisite of being lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent

resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).

Plaintiff Elena Portnoy also raises a claim under the Fifteenth Amendment that

she has been denied the right to vote in federal elections. This claim is predicated on the right to

Case 2:05-cv-00649-DFL -KJM Document 31 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

be naturalized. Because defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the naturalization

claim, the Fifteenth Amendment claim should be summarily adjudicated as well.

Plaintiffs further allege a claim under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiffs submit a letter from the Immigration and

Naturalization Service indicating that in response to plaintiff Elena Portnoy’s request for records,

118 pages of material were provided to plaintiff Elena Portnoy on July 30, 2002. Pls.’ Opp’n at

21 (Ex. 6). Plaintiffs have not explained what other records they are seeking or what documents

they believe the government is withholding from disclosure. Under these circumstances,

summary judgment should be granted in favor of defendants on the FOIA claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted on plaintiffs’ claim contesting the

removal order; and

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted on the remaining

claims. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00649-DFL -KJM Document 31 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file 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: August 10, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006 

portnoy.57

Case 2:05-cv-00649-DFL -KJM Document 31 Filed 08/10/06 Page 4 of 4