Bassem Mustapha Hijazi v. Loretta E Lynch et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to SHOW CAUSE, no later than October 26, 2016, why the Court should not dismiss this case for failure to effect service of process within the Rule 4(m) period. The Court will discharge this Order upon the filing of a proof of service as to each Respondent. Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice without further warning from the Court. (pj)

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12

BASSEM MUSTAPHA HIJAZI,
Petitioner,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 5:16-CV-00449-ODW(KK)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States
Attorney General; JEH JOHNSON,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director
of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Service; SUSAN M.
CURDA, Director of United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service Los
Angeles District; IRENE MARTIN,
United States Citizenship and Immigration
Service San Bernardino Field Office
Director,
Respondents.

1

On May 25, 2016, Petitioner, Bassem Mustapha Hijazi filed a writ of

2

mandamus seeking to force the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

3

(embodied here by the named Respondents) to either approve or deny his N-400

4

Application for Naturalization. (Compl. 4, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that the

5

agency has taken longer than the proscribed 120-day period to adjudicate his

6

application. (Id.) However, Plaintiff failed to serve Respondents within the Rule

7

4(m) period after filing his complaint

8

Therefore, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to SHOW CAUSE, no later than

9

October 26, 2016, why the Court should not dismiss this case for failure to effect

10

service of process within the Rule 4(m) period. The Court will discharge this Order

11

upon the filing of a proof of service as to each Respondent. Failure to timely respond

12

to this Order may result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice without further

13

warning from the Court.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

October 12, 2016

17
18
19

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2