Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01610/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jamal Atalla
Petitioner
John Kramer
Respondent
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Respondent

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jamal Atalla,

Petitioner, 

vs.

John Kramer, District Director of United

States Citizenship and Immigration

Services, United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 09-1610-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc.

#17). 

Respondents initially moved for summary judgment on two issues: (1) whether

Atalla testified falsely when he applied for naturalization; and (2) whether, in doing so,

Atalla intended to deceive United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). 

In their Reply, however, Respondents conceded that there was a genuine issue of material

fact as to whether Atalla intended to deceive USCIS, but contended that they were still

entitled to summary judgment as to whether Atalla testified falsely. 

The Court is not required to grant summary judgment even when it appears that

there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s

note on 2007 amendments (citing Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U.S. 249, 256-57

(1948)) (“It is established that although there is no discretion to enter summary judgment

when there is a genuine issue of material fact, there is discretion to deny summary

Case 2:09-cv-01610-NVW Document 38 Filed 03/12/10 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 - 2 -

judgment when it appears that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”). Nor

would it be wise to do so in this case. It would not conserve judicial resources for the

Court to grant summary judgment solely on the issue of whether Atalla provided false

testimony. A hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) would still be required on the

separate issue of Atalla’s intent, and most, if not all, of the evidence relevant to that issue

would also be relevant to the issue of whether Atalla testified falsely. Because the two

issues are intertwined, it would be more efficient for the Court to consider both issues

during the 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) hearing. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (doc. #17) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stay of Discovery issued December 2, 2009

(doc. #19) is lifted and discovery may proceed. By separate order, the Court will set a

Scheduling Conference.

DATED this 12th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01610-NVW Document 38 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 2