You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Why you waited that long?
It is bizarre that AUSA filed a motion to dismiss on 12/23/06 and you waited till now to tell the forum?
Paz is right, you must file your counter motion within the time specified in your local rules. You may speak to court clerk and come up with some good excuses why you did not file yet or may be court clerk will tell you something that help you.
We all need to understand now on there will be a motion to dismiss, so we have to be ready.
It is bizarre that AUSA filed a motion to dismiss on 12/23/06 and you waited till now to tell the forum?
Paz is right, you must file your counter motion within the time specified in your local rules. You may speak to court clerk and come up with some good excuses why you did not file yet or may be court clerk will tell you something that help you.
We all need to understand now on there will be a motion to dismiss, so we have to be ready.
Olin said:Paz and other heros,
I need your urgent advice on how to proceed with my I-485 (green card) WOM. I followed the examples posted on this forum and filed my WOM pro se on 10/23/2006 at the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On 12/22/2006, the Assistant US Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss with the following arguements:
1. The district court does not have jurisdiction of this case under 28 USC §§ 1391
2. THe disctrict court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1361, because Plaintiff is not eligible for mandamus relief
3. The court lacks jurisdiction to review my complaint under APA, 5 USC §§ 701 et seq
4. I am not entitled to an order of declaratory judgement under 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202
5. The district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary administrative determinations pursuant to REAL ID Act, 8 USC §§ 1252(a)(2)(B).
I called the Assistant US Attorney who handles my case, and she told me that she did not ask the USCIS to expedite my case because I have to wait even my name check has been pending since March 2003.
The following is the brief of my case:
08/25/2001, I-485 (family based) received by Washington DC District Office
01/14/2003, First FP
03/26/2003, AOS Interview at Washington DC District Office, was told case could not be proved due to name check pending
05/25/2005, Second FP
07/25/2005, Files moved to Dallas District Office due to relocation
10/23/2006 WOM Filed at Northern District Court of Texas
12/23/2006, US Attorney filed Motion to Dismiss
I have tried InfoPass appointments, congress/senator inquiries numerous times before I filed WOM, and now the US Attorney does not show any mercy and filed the Motion to Dismiss.
I have bee very depressed since I received the Motion to Dismiss. I seek for your advice on how to proceed. Do you recommend me to hire a lawyer or not? Do you have a sample letter for opposing the Motion to Dismiss?
Olin
WOM I485 problem
I just had a conference call with my AUSA and the magistrate judge where we were trying to resolve my case. (pending NM since March 2005, GC-marriage based). AUSA position is that FBI is planning to dismiss my case, since they do NOT have any timeframe to clear the NC by law and they fill file the dissmisal of my case and I of course requested a trial. Now I have 14 days to refuse dismissal, but did somebody really see some timeframe for clearing NC for the GC? I will go through Paz's posted documents, but I believe they are all for citizenship. Any other idea what else should I put in my petition? It looks that I do not have any grounds to request adjustication of my status in a timeley matter. I know that AUSA ordered expedited NC for me, but I do not know the exact day. If my case will be dismissed then it will give ground to dismiss all other WOM GC cases to FBI.
I just had a conference call with my AUSA and the magistrate judge where we were trying to resolve my case. (pending NM since March 2005, GC-marriage based). AUSA position is that FBI is planning to dismiss my case, since they do NOT have any timeframe to clear the NC by law and they fill file the dissmisal of my case and I of course requested a trial. Now I have 14 days to refuse dismissal, but did somebody really see some timeframe for clearing NC for the GC? I will go through Paz's posted documents, but I believe they are all for citizenship. Any other idea what else should I put in my petition? It looks that I do not have any grounds to request adjustication of my status in a timeley matter. I know that AUSA ordered expedited NC for me, but I do not know the exact day. If my case will be dismissed then it will give ground to dismiss all other WOM GC cases to FBI.
kefira said:I just had a conference call with my AUSA and the magistrate judge where we were trying to resolve my case. (pending NM since March 2005, GC-marriage based). AUSA position is that FBI is planning to dismiss my case, since they do NOT have any timeframe to clear the NC by law and they fill file the dissmisal of my case and I of course requested a trial. Now I have 14 days to refuse dismissal, but did somebody really see some timeframe for clearing NC for the GC? I will go through Paz's posted documents, but I believe they are all for citizenship. Any other idea what else should I put in my petition? It looks that I do not have any grounds to request adjustication of my status in a timeley matter. I know that AUSA ordered expedited NC for me, but I do not know the exact day. If my case will be dismissed then it will give ground to dismiss all other WOM GC cases to FBI.
I would not worry about Defendents intentions. Tell us your timelines. Did you had any time extensions before pre trial conference?
I am surprised that US attorney did not filled Motion to dismiss earlier? It looks like they are trying to buy time.
There are many cases where Judges issued writ of mandamus to compel agencies to take actions where no time line is given by any statue. You can use many of them in your motion to dismiss.
wenlock said:I would not worry about Defendents intentions. Tell us your timelines. Did you had any time extensions before pre trial conference?
I am surprised that US attorney did not filled Motion to dismiss earlier? It looks like they are trying to buy time.
I filed WOM on Oct 30,06. 60 days later on Dec 30 they answered me. I posted their answer on this board, but you guys told me not to do anything, since it was a simple answer where AUSA already suggested to dismiss my case. After it on Feb 1, I had to sign paper together with AUSA, that I want ADR (alternate dispute resolution) - this is standard since I am going PerSe. Today I, AUSA and magistrate judge tried to come up with what kind of ADR is necessary. Stupid burocrasy. AUSA answered that FBI position never agree to ADR and they will be filing to dismiss my case. I do not know the timeframe when they r planning to do it (or should I consider their answer from Dec as a motion to dismiss the case), but I remember that once I signed paper where I asked for 14 days after they file for dismissal to prevent it. On the phone call I asked for a trial. Magistrate judge told me that he will update the file and pass this info to the assigned judge. Probably I need to call and talk to the clerk and ask about the trial day? or should I wait for their dismissal, but in the meantime already write down my opposition? Based on AUSA FBI position that "we r working and if it will take us 10 years to clear NC, then we'll do it for 10 years".
kefira said:I filed WOM on Oct 30,06. 60 days later on Dec 30 they answered me. I posted their answer on this board, but you guys told me not to do anything, since it was a simple answer where AUSA already suggested to dismiss my case. After it on Feb 1, I had to sign paper together with AUSA, that I want ADR (alternate dispute resolution) - this is standard since I am going PerSe. Today I, AUSA and magistrate judge tried to come up with what kind of ADR is necessary. Stupid burocrasy. AUSA answered that FBI position never agree to ADR and they will be filing to dismiss my case. I do not know the timeframe when they r planning to do it (or should I consider their answer from Dec as a motion to dismiss the case), but I remember that once I signed paper where I asked for 14 days after they file for dismissal to prevent it. On the phone call I asked for a trial. Magistrate judge told me that he will update the file and pass this info to the assigned judge. Probably I need to call and talk to the clerk and ask about the trial day? or should I wait for their dismissal, but in the meantime already write down my opposition? Based on AUSA FBI position that "we r working and if it will take us 10 years to clear NC, then we'll do it for 10 years".
Just a thought, If the AUSA is making a statement like that "we r working and if it will take us 10 years to clear NC, then we'll do it for 10 years" in front of a judge, maybe he wants the judge to issue an order for an expidited check. I am not sure but you should see if you can file something like an opposition to motion to dismiss and site that USCIS has option to expedite NC. I dont know enough about what this response should be called. Paz others can comment
lotechguy said:Just a thought, If the AUSA is making a statement like that "we r working and if it will take us 10 years to clear NC, then we'll do it for 10 years" in front of a judge, maybe he wants the judge to issue an order for an expidited check. I am not sure but you should see if you can file something like an opposition to motion to dismiss and site that USCIS has option to expedite NC. I dont know enough about what this response should be called. Paz others can comment
She did not say exactly 10 years, this is my free translation/interpretation, but she said that FBI by law does not have any timeframe to finish the NC and they will be working on it for so long as it needed. If she (AUSA) did not lie to me, then she ordered already expedited name check (this is what she told me on Feb 1), although on Jan 3 or something she told me that FBI does not do anymore expedite name checks.
Yesterday on one of the forums one guy wrote that he is waiting for his NC for 5 years and he is legally in US for 9 years. If he wanted to do some harm, he would do it already... It is so ridiculous. People r coming here on working visas and NOBODY checks their medical condition, their background... and when u live legally here, went through billion tests, pay your taxes this is what we all have to go through. I hope I really will have a trial and my case won't be dismissed before it and I will be able to tell it to the judge.
Keep fighting
Asccording to some posts earlier, publicly CIS claims that no more expedited NC in case of WOM, but it seems CIS is still requesting FBI to expedite NC. If you have to go to court face to face, donot be too emotional, just in very detail list what damage we encountered before of NC delay, let the judge be at our side.
If judge orders CIS to expedite, CIS must do it, I think.
Asccording to some posts earlier, publicly CIS claims that no more expedited NC in case of WOM, but it seems CIS is still requesting FBI to expedite NC. If you have to go to court face to face, donot be too emotional, just in very detail list what damage we encountered before of NC delay, let the judge be at our side.
If judge orders CIS to expedite, CIS must do it, I think.
kefira said:She did not say exactly 10 years, this is my free translation/interpretation, but she said that FBI by law does not have any timeframe to finish the NC and they will be working on it for so long as it needed. If she (AUSA) did not lie to me, then she ordered already expedited name check (this is what she told me on Feb 1), although on Jan 3 or something she told me that FBI does not do anymore expedite name checks.
Yesterday on one of the forums one guy wrote that he is waiting for his NC for 5 years and he is legally in US for 9 years. If he wanted to do some harm, he would do it already... It is so ridiculous. People r coming here on working visas and NOBODY checks their medical condition, their background... and when u live legally here, went through billion tests, pay your taxes this is what we all have to go through. I hope I really will have a trial and my case won't be dismissed before it and I will be able to tell it to the judge.
AUSA asks for 30 days extension
Today is WOM due day of 60 days. AUSA asks for extension and I was told they are working on my case. And no more information. What does not mean?Just concerned that they only try to buy time. I saw some cases got motion to dismiss after extension. Any comments? thanks
Today is WOM due day of 60 days. AUSA asks for extension and I was told they are working on my case. And no more information. What does not mean?Just concerned that they only try to buy time. I saw some cases got motion to dismiss after extension. Any comments? thanks
Unfortunately I do not think you have any other option, but only to agree for the extension. You should be nice to AUSA...gcok2006 said:Today is WOM due day of 60 days. AUSA asks for extension and I was told they are working on my case. And no more information. What does not mean?Just concerned that they only try to buy time. I saw some cases got motion to dismiss after extension. Any comments? thanks
what is rule 26(f) report
hi, paz and all:
on my "order setting intial case management conference and adr deadlines" issued by court, there's following:
2/9/2007 Last day to complete intitial disclosures or state objection in rule 26(f) report, file case management statement, AND file rule 26(f) report.
i only heard on the forum, that case management statement is needed, none mentioned 26(f)? can anyone offer a hand, i did download some example from pacer on inital joint case management statement, but never find any rule 26(f) report. do i need to file one?
cannot get a hold on my AUSA, just want to have something handy in case i need to file in this Friday.
thanks,
pearl
hi, paz and all:
on my "order setting intial case management conference and adr deadlines" issued by court, there's following:
2/9/2007 Last day to complete intitial disclosures or state objection in rule 26(f) report, file case management statement, AND file rule 26(f) report.
i only heard on the forum, that case management statement is needed, none mentioned 26(f)? can anyone offer a hand, i did download some example from pacer on inital joint case management statement, but never find any rule 26(f) report. do i need to file one?
cannot get a hold on my AUSA, just want to have something handy in case i need to file in this Friday.
thanks,
pearl
pearlgal said:hi, paz and all:
on my "order setting intial case management conference and adr deadlines" issued by court, there's following:
2/9/2007 Last day to complete intitial disclosures or state objection in rule 26(f) report, file case management statement, AND file rule 26(f) report.
i only heard on the forum, that case management statement is needed, none mentioned 26(f)? can anyone offer a hand, i did download some example from pacer on inital joint case management statement, but never find any rule 26(f) report. do i need to file one?
cannot get a hold on my AUSA, just want to have something handy in case i need to file in this Friday.
thanks,
pearl
I went through the same process. Please read all my posts since I described everything that I went through. If you have more questions, pls ask me.
kefira said:I went through the same process. Please read all my posts since I described everything that I went through. If you have more questions, pls ask me.
At this point I would call court clerk and ask him about next process. Usually if defendents file motion to dismiss there is already alert on pacer or order from Judge that petitioner should respond by this date.
In you case if you do not see any deadlines to respond then I believe you are waiting for court to make next step.
You might be able to respond to defendents answer but I am not sure what that would be.
I think Paz might have better understanding.
Hault NC Expedition?-update I find on the web
Dear ALL,
Here's the most update information I found while researching the internet Since it came from Law firm, information should be reliable.
Following is quote from what published on their website on Jan.4, 2007.
"......DHS/USCIS Unified Agenda (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 237, Dec. 11, 2006), which publishes all upcoming federal agency interim rules for the next six months. There has been some concern regarding Sequence Number 1306 entitled Withholding of Adjudication. (RIN: 1615-AA86) This interim rule would codify USCIS's power to withhold adjudication while the FBI Name Check is pending. It would also in effect, abolish N-400 Name Check lawsuits by expanding the definition of "examination" to include the FBI Name Check. This means that the 120-day period will not begin tolling until the FBI Name Check is complete, effectively allowing USCIS and the FBI unlimited time with the Name Check.
While this interim rule will eventually come into effect, it is by no means imminent. The actual language of this rule has not even been published yet. In fact, this particular RIN has appeared in the Unified Agenda since March 2003, with no concrete movement towards final publication in the past three years. From our conversations with the USCIS attorney's office in Washington D.C., it appears that this particular rule is still being debated with no solid date of publication yet......"
Here is the URL, someone who lives in that state may consult with them and maybe get more information.
http://www.jclawoffice.com/en/data/news_view.asp?newsid=435
disclaim: I do not work for them or asssociate with them, just want to share the information.
Dear ALL,
Here's the most update information I found while researching the internet Since it came from Law firm, information should be reliable.
Following is quote from what published on their website on Jan.4, 2007.
"......DHS/USCIS Unified Agenda (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 237, Dec. 11, 2006), which publishes all upcoming federal agency interim rules for the next six months. There has been some concern regarding Sequence Number 1306 entitled Withholding of Adjudication. (RIN: 1615-AA86) This interim rule would codify USCIS's power to withhold adjudication while the FBI Name Check is pending. It would also in effect, abolish N-400 Name Check lawsuits by expanding the definition of "examination" to include the FBI Name Check. This means that the 120-day period will not begin tolling until the FBI Name Check is complete, effectively allowing USCIS and the FBI unlimited time with the Name Check.
While this interim rule will eventually come into effect, it is by no means imminent. The actual language of this rule has not even been published yet. In fact, this particular RIN has appeared in the Unified Agenda since March 2003, with no concrete movement towards final publication in the past three years. From our conversations with the USCIS attorney's office in Washington D.C., it appears that this particular rule is still being debated with no solid date of publication yet......"
Here is the URL, someone who lives in that state may consult with them and maybe get more information.
http://www.jclawoffice.com/en/data/news_view.asp?newsid=435
disclaim: I do not work for them or asssociate with them, just want to share the information.
kefira said:I filed WOM on Oct 30,06. 60 days later on Dec 30 they answered me. I posted their answer on this board, but you guys told me not to do anything, since it was a simple answer where AUSA already suggested to dismiss my case. After it on Feb 1, I had to sign paper together with AUSA, that I want ADR (alternate dispute resolution) - this is standard since I am going PerSe. Today I, AUSA and magistrate judge tried to come up with what kind of ADR is necessary. Stupid burocrasy. AUSA answered that FBI position never agree to ADR and they will be filing to dismiss my case. I do not know the timeframe when they r planning to do it (or should I consider their answer from Dec as a motion to dismiss the case), but I remember that once I signed paper where I asked for 14 days after they file for dismissal to prevent it. On the phone call I asked for a trial. Magistrate judge told me that he will update the file and pass this info to the assigned judge. Probably I need to call and talk to the clerk and ask about the trial day? or should I wait for their dismissal, but in the meantime already write down my opposition? Based on AUSA FBI position that "we r working and if it will take us 10 years to clear NC, then we'll do it for 10 years".
Here is rule 26(f) from the FRCP:pearlgal said:hi, paz and all:
on my "order setting intial case management conference and adr deadlines" issued by court, there's following:
2/9/2007 Last day to complete intitial disclosures or state objection in rule 26(f) report, file case management statement, AND file rule 26(f) report.
i only heard on the forum, that case management statement is needed, none mentioned 26(f)? can anyone offer a hand, i did download some example from pacer on inital joint case management statement, but never find any rule 26(f) report. do i need to file one?
cannot get a hold on my AUSA, just want to have something handy in case i need to file in this Friday.
thanks,
pearl
"(f) Conference of Parties; Planning for Discovery.
Except in categories of proceedings exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(E) or when otherwise ordered, the parties must, as soon as practicable and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), to discuss any issues relating to preserving discoverable information, and to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties' views and proposals concerning:
(1) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) were made or will be made;
(2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular issues;
(3) any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced;
(4) any issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, including - if the parties agree on a procedure to assert such claims after production - whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order;
(5) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and
(6) any other orders that should be entered by the court under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).
The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. A court may order that the parties or attorneys attend the conference in person. If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule 16(b) conferences, a court may by local rule (i) require that the conference between the parties occur fewer than 21 days before the scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), and (ii) require that the written report outlining the discovery plan be filed fewer than 14 days after the conference between the parties, or excuse the parties from submitting a written report and permit them to report orally on their discovery plan at the Rule 16(b) conference."
I didn't have to go through this so I don't know much about this whole process. But as I remember reading on this forum, this is something, where the parties (try) to agree what sould be produced in the discovery phase, dates, etc. Because these lawsuits are typically not disputing factual allegations, it is always a question of interpreting the law (e.g., "examination" equals or not "interview", or how long is unreasonably long delay, or does USCIS have a clear non-discretionary duty to adjudicate your application within a reasonable amount of time), in my opinion this rule 26(f) report and all this ADR has less importance than in other type of cases, where the discovery can produce substantial difference. Nevertheless, because it is ordered by the court, you should comply. But you can't do this alone; it is clearly stated that "the parties...must confer..." so this should be done together with AUSA. (s)he probably knows better what should be the format of this.
My personal opinion:gcok2006 said:Today is WOM due day of 60 days. AUSA asks for extension and I was told they are working on my case. And no more information. What does not mean?Just concerned that they only try to buy time. I saw some cases got motion to dismiss after extension. Any comments? thanks
(1) Extension is better than Motion of Dismiss. extension is somehow they are try to solve your case, but need more time. In their motion of extension, they should explain to Judge why they want extension (Can you find out why they want extension in pacer?)
(2) Working on your case mean AUSA is making conversation with USCUS and FBI to find a solution on your case, either fight with you or settle before going to court. Usually, they will not tell you any detail until they have to. Even they expedite your name check, they wouldn't let you know.
my concern is even AUSA, USCIS and FBI agree to expedite your name check, it is possible that they need 2 or 3 month to get it done. By end of the extension due, they find out expedited name check is still pending, they will file Motion of Dismiss to fight, then get some more time to deal with your case.
(3) If it is possible, try to conversate with AUSA more and find more information. Maybe not everyone is nice to plaintiff, but they are very critical to your case. everyone of us like to settle, same to them. So be patient.
thank you very much
Thanks for your comments. You are right. I am also concerned that CIS/FBI may play more trick, such as making tougher policy, as time goes by. But if I agree with the extension -- I did, I will more evidence to fight.
Thanks for your comments. You are right. I am also concerned that CIS/FBI may play more trick, such as making tougher policy, as time goes by. But if I agree with the extension -- I did, I will more evidence to fight.
myang1969 said:My personal opinion:
(1) Extension is better than Motion of Dismiss. extension is somehow they are try to solve your case, but need more time. In their motion of extension, they should explain to Judge why they want extension (Can you find out why they want extension in pacer?)
(2) Working on your case mean AUSA is making conversation with USCUS and FBI to find a solution on your case, either fight with you or settle before going to court. Usually, they will not tell you any detail until they have to. Even they expedite your name check, they wouldn't let you know.
my concern is even AUSA, USCIS and FBI agree to expedite your name check, it is possible that they need 2 or 3 month to get it done. By end of the extension due, they find out expedited name check is still pending, they will file Motion of Dismiss to fight, then get some more time to deal with your case.
(3) If it is possible, try to conversate with AUSA more and find more information. Maybe not everyone is nice to plaintiff, but they are very critical to your case. everyone of us like to settle, same to them. So be patient.
What will happen if not responding to Motion of Dismiss
Thanks Paz. This is a painful lesson to me. I did not respond to the motion because I think the judge will make the decision. Now, could you tell me what will be the result? Will my WOM be dismissed automatically? Or, is it still in the judge's hand?
Olin
_______
I-485 name check pending since March 2003
Filed WOM on October 23, 2006
AUSA filed Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 23, 2006
paz1960 said:Unfortunately, it is too late. I just checked your Local Rules:
LR 7.1. e:
Time for Response and Brief. A response and brief to an opposed motion must be filed within 20 days from the date the motion is filed.
This means that you would have to file a Response of this Motion to Dismiss by 1/13/2007. Sometimes filing a lawsuit and just wait and hope that this will solve your problem, is not enough. I'm not sure that anything can be done at this point.
Thanks Paz. This is a painful lesson to me. I did not respond to the motion because I think the judge will make the decision. Now, could you tell me what will be the result? Will my WOM be dismissed automatically? Or, is it still in the judge's hand?
Olin
_______
I-485 name check pending since March 2003
Filed WOM on October 23, 2006
AUSA filed Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 23, 2006
Hello kefira,kefira said:I just had a conference call with my AUSA and the magistrate judge where we were trying to resolve my case. (pending NM since March 2005, GC-marriage based). AUSA position is that FBI is planning to dismiss my case, since they do NOT have any timeframe to clear the NC by law and they fill file the dissmisal of my case and I of course requested a trial. Now I have 14 days to refuse dismissal, but did somebody really see some timeframe for clearing NC for the GC? I will go through Paz's posted documents, but I believe they are all for citizenship. Any other idea what else should I put in my petition? It looks that I do not have any grounds to request adjustication of my status in a timeley matter. I know that AUSA ordered expedited NC for me, but I do not know the exact day. If my case will be dismissed then it will give ground to dismiss all other WOM GC cases to FBI.
Some small clarifications: FBI (or any of the defendants, including their counsel: AUSA) can't dismiss your lawsuit. They can ask the Court in a motion to dismiss your complaint, but it is up to the Court if they grant this motion or deny it. We already determined earlier that the document what AUSA filed was an Answer and not a Motion to Dismiss. The answer doesn't need a Reply or Opposition. As a matter of fact, in Aslam v. Gonzales in the Western District of Washington, when Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants' Answer, the judge entered an order and trew out this Opposition and reminded Plaintiff that there is no such thing as Opposition of an Answer.
From the statement of AUSA I understand that they are planning to file a Motion to Dismiss, most likely claiming that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the Plaintiff couldn't state a claim on which a relief can be granted. These are the standard arguments in all Motions to Dismiss filed in similar cases. I'm sure that we can come up with a good Opposition to this motion to dismiss, wenlock probably has a bunch of such oppositions from similar WOM cases, although his case is also N400, but without interview, so he also filed WOM.
I didn't quite understand the 14 days deadline you mentioned. Where this came from? It is very important to follow daily your docket, and inform us if anything new shows up there. So far, unless I missed something, the last filing was the Answer from AUSA. Was anything filed AFTER the conference with the magistrate judge and AUSA?
Last edited by a moderator:
Not heard from Judge yet
I have not heard anything from the judge yet, nor did I receive a letter from the clerk instructing me to respond. I will go to the clerk tomorrow and will keep you all informed.
Thanks.
Olin
_______
I-485 name check pending since March 2003
Filed WOM on October 23, 2006
AUSA filed Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 23, 2006
wenlock said:I am kind of surprised why you did not stayed on top of your case. If you would have replied with in 20 days of your alloted time we would have for sure helped you.
Did Judge ruled on your case yet like dismissed it or not?
Some times I know Judges rule after defendents file motion to dismiss. Like Plaintiff have ___ date to respond or case will be dismissed. But some times if judges are busy court clerk send out hand out to plaintiff with local rule specially if you are pro se.
I would contact court clerk and explain it to him that I am pro se and I was not aware of this rule. You can file motion with court to consider giving some more time to Plaintiff to respond as he is pro se and trying to seek legal help. Usually Judges are not strick. they have authority to tell court clerk to make Doc changes so I think there might be some light in the tunnel. try it let us know.
I have not heard anything from the judge yet, nor did I receive a letter from the clerk instructing me to respond. I will go to the clerk tomorrow and will keep you all informed.
Thanks.
Olin
_______
I-485 name check pending since March 2003
Filed WOM on October 23, 2006
AUSA filed Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 23, 2006