hayyyoot said:
Guys, I am from Las Vegas, I have been looking on pacer for 1447(b) cases, and only found my case, and another case, so, I called up teh guy who filed the only other 1447 before me in order to learn from his experience. He told me that the AUSA (the same one as mine) totally refused to communicae with him after the initial contact (4 months ago), I just found this to be odd, and wanted you to look at the case # 2:06-cv-00567-KJD-GWF in Nevada.
Sorry, I don't know how to attach files to this message.
Dear hayyyoot,
This is typically a situation where an amateur like me (and I assume that most of the other forum members) doesn't know the answer, because I didn't see on this forum reporting a similar scenario and I don't have any previous experience with lawsuits, like a lawyer has.
In my opinion, this strange situation could be the result of lack of precedence in your district court and nobody has a clear idea, what to do, how to handle such cases (including AUSA).
According to the court documents, AUSA informed verbally the Plaintiff that his background check is complete and USCIS is ready to adjudicate the case. Now if USCIS takes seriously 1447(b) they can't adjudicate this case, because as soon as the applicant filed his complaint, USCIS lost jurisdiction. It is still very strange that AUSA didn't file anything before the 60 days were up, and neither since. In my opinion this tells something about the professionalism (or lack of it) of the AUSA. Plaintiff should file a motion for default judgement. Although when the defendant is the United States, there is a special rule:
FRCP 55(e) Judgment Against the United States.
"No judgment by default shall be entered against the United States or an officer or agency thereof unless the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court."
This probably means that the judge still needs to look at the complaint and determine that the evidence is satisfactory to establish a right to relief (i.e., to adjudicate his case by the court).
Reading the complaint, I think that the "Civil Right Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983" is not the proper classification of this type of case. Also, albeight not important from the point of view of the main problem, Plaintiff is Pro Se but he still requested reasonable attorney's fee.
It seems to me strange that the AUSA totally refused to communicate with Plaintiff after the initial conversation 4 months ago. Because we don't know how that conversation did go, I think that we can't make assumptions why the communication between the parties broke down completely.
I would certainly ask my AUSA to talk to him/her preferably in person and offer my full cooperation, hinting that there are methods how to expedite this whole unfortunate name check process, which is the roadblock of these cases.
