Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
cajack said:
Hello Jack and everyone ..
The 60 days starts when the U.S. Attorney's office sign the green card “return receipt”, make sure to go to your local post office to get printout of that receipt, it will show the person who sign for it,and his name.
I wish you the best and everyone here
rob waiter
Registered Users (C)
where is the federal court in Boston?
Boston people, can you tell me where the federal court is in Boston?
I will file a case soon.
Boston people, can you tell me where the federal court is in Boston?
I will file a case soon.
LegalAlien99
Registered Users (C)
Hi Jatt,
Thanks for your quick response. So I will list the following defendants:
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
Phyllis Howard, Washington, D.C. District Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Plus serving the summons to local U.S. attorney as well as the U.S. Attorney General? Do I have to list the U.S. Attorney General as a defendant, or do I just serve him?
Best,
Nico
Thanks for your quick response. So I will list the following defendants:
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
Phyllis Howard, Washington, D.C. District Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Plus serving the summons to local U.S. attorney as well as the U.S. Attorney General? Do I have to list the U.S. Attorney General as a defendant, or do I just serve him?
Best,
Nico
LegalAlien99
You are missing Alberto Gonzales as a defendent.
Defendents should be:
1.Alberto Gonzales et, al.(et, al. means all departments are covered under US attorney general)
2.Emilio Gonzales et, al. Director USCIS
3. Michael Chertoff et, al. Secretary Homeland Security
4.Robert Mueller et, al. Director FBI
5.Phyllis Howard et, al. District Director USCIS Washington DO
Summons :
5 above defendents and US attorney
Chuck Rosenburg
2100 Jamieson Ave
Alexandria , Va 22314
you don't have to list US atty as a defendent.
Good Luck
You are missing Alberto Gonzales as a defendent.
Defendents should be:
1.Alberto Gonzales et, al.(et, al. means all departments are covered under US attorney general)
2.Emilio Gonzales et, al. Director USCIS
3. Michael Chertoff et, al. Secretary Homeland Security
4.Robert Mueller et, al. Director FBI
5.Phyllis Howard et, al. District Director USCIS Washington DO
Summons :
5 above defendents and US attorney
Chuck Rosenburg
2100 Jamieson Ave
Alexandria , Va 22314
you don't have to list US atty as a defendent.
Good Luck
LegalAlien99
Registered Users (C)
Hi Jatt!
Thanks a bunch!!!
Best,
Legal
Thanks a bunch!!!
Best,
Legal
Jurisdiction issue
All-
Can someone shed some light on jurusdiction issues. From PACER and communicating with others on this thread, I have come to the realization that Texas might not be the right place to file a WOM given the recend trend of case dismissals and remand to USCIS.
How does the jurisdiction on these cases work? Can I file anywhere I want? I talked to an attorney and he mentioned that he could file WOM in Washington, DC and it wouldn't be a jurisdiction issue.
Can someone educate me on this.
Thanks.
KJ
All-
Can someone shed some light on jurusdiction issues. From PACER and communicating with others on this thread, I have come to the realization that Texas might not be the right place to file a WOM given the recend trend of case dismissals and remand to USCIS.
How does the jurisdiction on these cases work? Can I file anywhere I want? I talked to an attorney and he mentioned that he could file WOM in Washington, DC and it wouldn't be a jurisdiction issue.
Can someone educate me on this.
Thanks.
KJ
boston_case
Registered Users (C)
Filed lawsuit 1447b today in Boston
Finally after 143 days filed lawsuit in Boston .
Finally after 143 days filed lawsuit in Boston .
rob waiter
Registered Users (C)
congrats, boston-case! can you please furnish with my details on filing? I will
file in 2 weeks.
file in 2 weeks.
boston_case said:
boston_case
Registered Users (C)
Details
Hi Rob,
Let me know if you need to know on any specific issue.
Boston Federal Court comes under Eastern District of Massachusetts.
(It depends where you live in Mass.
Address:
John Joseph Moakley
U.S. Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300
Boston, MA 02210
(617)748-9152
Office Hours:
8:30am - 5:00pm
Go to 2nd floor and look for clerk's office.
Hope it helps.
rob waiter said:
Hi Rob,
Let me know if you need to know on any specific issue.
Boston Federal Court comes under Eastern District of Massachusetts.
(It depends where you live in Mass.
Address:
John Joseph Moakley
U.S. Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300
Boston, MA 02210
(617)748-9152
Office Hours:
8:30am - 5:00pm
Go to 2nd floor and look for clerk's office.
Hope it helps.
hate140delay
Registered Users (C)
Stipulation to dismiss
My 485 is approved through WOM.
AUSA faxed me "Stipulation to dismiss action and Proposed Order" which says -
"Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the court, to dismissal of the action because the petitioner's I-485 application for adjustment of status has been adjudicated.
Each of the parties shall bear their own costs and fees."
There is no mention to dismiss "without prejudice". Looking at the Pro-se handbook, the definition of "without prejudice" is -
If a court dismisses claims in your complaint without prejudice, you may file another complaint in which you assert these claims again. Dismissal without prejudice is sometimes also referred to as dismissal “with leave to amend” because you are permitted to file an amended complaint.
I read previous posts always asking to put "without prejudice" but in my case I guess there is no more action to be taken as I have already got my cards.
Ok to sign and dismiss with AUSA's version?
My 485 is approved through WOM.
AUSA faxed me "Stipulation to dismiss action and Proposed Order" which says -
"Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the court, to dismissal of the action because the petitioner's I-485 application for adjustment of status has been adjudicated.
Each of the parties shall bear their own costs and fees."
There is no mention to dismiss "without prejudice". Looking at the Pro-se handbook, the definition of "without prejudice" is -
If a court dismisses claims in your complaint without prejudice, you may file another complaint in which you assert these claims again. Dismissal without prejudice is sometimes also referred to as dismissal “with leave to amend” because you are permitted to file an amended complaint.
I read previous posts always asking to put "without prejudice" but in my case I guess there is no more action to be taken as I have already got my cards.
Ok to sign and dismiss with AUSA's version?
ApplyInDenver
Registered Users (C)
venus
(e) A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which
(1) a defendant in the action resides,
(2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees, or agencies were not a party.
The summons and complaint in such an action shall be served as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure except that the delivery of the summons and complaint to the officer or agency as required by the rules may be made by certified mail beyond the territorial limits of the district in which the action is brought.
I guess he is using (1) since most of the defendants are in Washington D.C.
Here is a link for the Venue
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001391----000-.html
This is described in 28 U.S.C § 1391(e)KJ said:
(e) A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which
(1) a defendant in the action resides,
(2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees, or agencies were not a party.
The summons and complaint in such an action shall be served as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure except that the delivery of the summons and complaint to the officer or agency as required by the rules may be made by certified mail beyond the territorial limits of the district in which the action is brought.
I guess he is using (1) since most of the defendants are in Washington D.C.
Here is a link for the Venue
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001391----000-.html
Last edited by a moderator:
ApplyInDenver
Registered Users (C)
Congrats
In my opinion, it would be OK to sign and dismiss the case since you already have the card
Unless you want to go after the costs.
But I don't think it will be a big deal for the AUSA to add the "without prejudice" term if you just want to play safe.
hate140delay said:
In my opinion, it would be OK to sign and dismiss the case since you already have the card
Unless you want to go after the costs.But I don't think it will be a big deal for the AUSA to add the "without prejudice" term if you just want to play safe.
Congratulations!!!
Dear Hate140Delay,
If you have already recd your GC then go with this updated one:
"Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the court, to dismissal of the action because the petitioner's I-485 application for adjustment of status has been adjudicated. The Plaintiff's AOS application was long delayed for ### of days or months, which is now processed as a result of filing his/her complaint with this honorable court. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs and fees."
If you have not physically recd your GC and has been verbally or in written form informed that it is approved then go for this updated format:
"Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the court, to dismiss without prejudice the action because the petitioner's I-485 application for adjustment of status as per USCIS (Exhibit Notice of Approval if any) has been adjudicated. The Plaintiff's AOS application was long delayed for ### of days or months, which is now processed as a result of filing his/her complaint with this honorable court. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs and fees."
I dont know if you have seen my old posts but we in this form long time ago discussed to state about some kind of indication in the dismissal part which will help Pro Se filers after us... this way not only they can refer to our cases but also feel confident about filing Pro Se complaints.
I hope this help...
hate140delay said:
Dear Hate140Delay,
If you have already recd your GC then go with this updated one:
"Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the court, to dismissal of the action because the petitioner's I-485 application for adjustment of status has been adjudicated. The Plaintiff's AOS application was long delayed for ### of days or months, which is now processed as a result of filing his/her complaint with this honorable court. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs and fees."
If you have not physically recd your GC and has been verbally or in written form informed that it is approved then go for this updated format:
"Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the court, to dismiss without prejudice the action because the petitioner's I-485 application for adjustment of status as per USCIS (Exhibit Notice of Approval if any) has been adjudicated. The Plaintiff's AOS application was long delayed for ### of days or months, which is now processed as a result of filing his/her complaint with this honorable court. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs and fees."
I dont know if you have seen my old posts but we in this form long time ago discussed to state about some kind of indication in the dismissal part which will help Pro Se filers after us... this way not only they can refer to our cases but also feel confident about filing Pro Se complaints.
I hope this help...
Dear Hate140Delay,ApplyInDenver said:In my opinion, it would be OK to sign and dismiss the case since you already have the card
But I don't think it will be a big deal for the AUSA to add the "without prejudice" term if you just want to play safe.
ApplyInDenver is correct too... Its your choice... ApplyInDenver, I didnot mean to cut you I think I was typing while you were writing this response... I did not see your response...
hate140delay
Registered Users (C)
Thanks Haddy/ApplyinDenver.Haddy said:
Haddy, I like your suggestion. It definitely makes sense to add those lines for future Pro se filers.
Good luck with your WOM. You are a great example of strength to all Pro-se filers. Hope the judge favors in your behalf.
ApplyInDenver
Registered Users (C)
Haddy,Haddy said:
I think your version is more detailed and a better answer
I won't mind at all, since we are here to share information and help each other,
the more information the better. I was not aware of the discussions you mentioned in your previous post