Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00329/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noman Shaheed
Plaintiff
USCIS Sacramento Field Office
Defendant
United States Citizenship and Immigration Service
Defendant

Document Text:

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, 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER 

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

undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will be granted. Granting IFP status does not end the 

court’s inquiry, however, as the Court is required by Section 1915(e)(2) to screen the complaint 

and must dismiss an action if it is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court concludes that, for screening purposes only, Plaintiff’s claims are 

sufficiently cognizable and directs service. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00329-TLN-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/17/24 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 

27 

28 

2 

I. SCREENING 

 A. Legal Standard 

The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain 

statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, 

rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to 

relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

B. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff’s complaint names only one defendant, the United States Citizenship & 

Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Sacramento Field Office. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges 

federal question jurisdiction based on “Immigration and Nationality.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges 

that he passed his naturalization interview in September 2023 and was told he would receive his 

oath ceremony letter in the mail, but has not received it. Id. at 5. He seeks injunctive relief in the 

form of scheduling his oath ceremony as soon as possible. Id. at 6. 

C. Analysis 

 The Complaint names the local USCIS field office as the defendant in this action, and the 

Court construes this as a claim against USCIS as an agency. Although Plaintiff has not named an 

individual defendant, an official capacity claim against an officer of a government agency is, in 

essence, a claim against the agency itself. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985) (“As 

long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official-capacity 

suit is, in all respects, other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity ... the real party in 

interest is the entity.”). 

The Complaint alleges as grounds for jurisdiction the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

and 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) provides a basis for jurisdiction. Although the allegations of the 

Case 2:24-cv-00329-TLN-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/17/24 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 

27 

28 

3 

Complaint are sparse, Plaintiff alleges he had his interview as part of the naturalization process in 

September 2023 and that he was told he would receive his oath ceremony letter in the mail, but 

more than four months had passed without response. Section 1447(b) states that if a 

determination is not made within 120 days after the examination is conducted, the applicant for 

naturalization may apply to the United States district court and that the court “has jurisdiction 

over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter.” See also Hakimi v. 

Jadou, 2024 WL 3756169 (E.D. Cal. August 12, 2024) (“When an individual submits an 

application for naturalization and the USCIS fails to make a determination on that application 

within 120 days after the agency’s interview of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the 

district court for a hearing on the matter.”). Plaintiff’s allegation that more than 120 days passed 

without a determination is sufficient to state a claim against USCIS. 

II. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 

2. Service of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) on Defendant United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services is appropriate. An agency of the United States may be served as 

provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to 

serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4, without prepayment of costs. 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff the above: one USM-285 form, one summons, 

a copy of the complaint, and an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 

5. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date this order is 

filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall 

promptly file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the 

United States Marshal. The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will 

require, for each defendant in ¶ 2, above, at least: 

 a. One completed summons; 

Case 2:24-cv-00329-TLN-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/17/24 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 

27 

28 

4 

 b. One completed USM-285 form; 

c. One copy of the endorsed filed complaint, with an extra copy for the 

U.S. Marshal; 

d. One copy of the instant order; and 

e. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 

6. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on the 

Defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is directed to report that 

fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned. 

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal, 501 

“I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030. 

8. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 15, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00329-TLN-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/17/24 Page 4 of 4