Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 102

ORDER re Supplemental Declaration from Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/19/2012. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMSHID S. KASHANNEJAD,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-2228 EMC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION FROM PLAINTIFF

v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,

(Docket Nos. 98-101)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15

Plaintiff has submitted a statement questioning whether Defendants have complied with the

16

Court’s prior orders. See, e.g., Docket No. 88, 94 (orders). Defendants have submitted a

17

declaration, indicated that they have complied with the orders. Having reviewed the papers

18

submitted, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration. In the

19

supplemental declaration, Plaintiff must state:

20
21
22

(1)

What the entire contents of the package were. This should include a clarification as

to whether the package included two envelopes or three envelopes.
(2)

Assuming that he received only two envelopes (one for him and one for the carrier),

23

whether he would prefer a new transportation letter to CBP to be mailed to him or whether he would

24

prefer to pick up a new letter in Dubai.

25

To the extent Plaintiff suggests that the transportation letter to the carrier must include

26

attachments (i.e., one of the Court’s prior orders and the Mulraney declaration), the Court does not

27

agree that such is necessary. The attachments are needed only with respect to the transportation

28

letter to CBP, not the carrier.

1

To the extent Plaintiff, in his reply brief, presents evidence that the transportation letter will

2

not be accepted by a carrier, the Court finds the argument unpersuasive. Plaintiff has not provided

3

any evidence that the transportation letter for the carrier – as opposed to the courtesy copy that the

4

Court ordered be provided to him – is inadequate. The Court specifically allowed Defendants to

5

include markings on the courtesy copy to indicate that it is not an official document. See Docket

6

No. 88 (Order at 2).

7
8

Plaintiff shall file his supplemental declaration within three court days from the date of this
order.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: June 19, 2012

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2