Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 176

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 173 Plaintiff's Request for Clarification. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/4/2012. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
(Docket No. 173)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

Plaintiff has filed a brief titled “Request for Clarification.” Although titled such, the request

17

is really a request for modification, and not one for clarification. Defendants thereafter filed a

18

response and Plaintiff a reply (titled a “Status Report”). Plaintiff’s request is hereby GRANTED in

19

part and DENIED in part.

20

Plaintiff asks first that the Court order the transportation letter(s) to the air carrier not include

21

the Mulraney Declaration as an attachment. Plaintiff argues that attaching the declaration would be

22

prejudicial to his interests because it contains a statement that there is an open arrest warrant for

23

Plaintiff. The Court does not find the declaration prejudicial. In his declaration, Mr. Mulraney

24

simply notes that it is his understanding that there is an open arrest warrant and that, “if Pomona

25

wants to pick up Mr. Kashannejad, CPB will issue a Form I-245 and turn him over to local law

26

enforcement for transportation to Pomona.” Docket No. 83 (Mulraney Decl. ¶ 5). The declaration

27

does not refer to what the alleged crime is. Moreover, it is unlikely that the air carrier would read

28

through the Mulraney declaration in the first place as it is directed to the attention of CBP, not the

1

carrier. All that the carrier has an interest in is not being held liable for transporting Plaintiff and

2

that is attested to in the part of the transportation letter(s) addressed to the carrier. Even if the air

3

carrier did read the declaration, that does not detract from the promise of immunity from liability as

4

stated in the transportation letter(s). Finally, the Court notes that its decision to include the

5

Mulraney declaration as an attachment was to ensure that the air carrier would not reject the

6

transportation letter(s) on the ground that it was purportedly incomplete for not having the

7

declaration (and Court order) attached.

8
9

In his second request, Plaintiff legitimately points to the fact that it is not clear from the
Court’s order the exact date that the transportation letter(s) will expire. Plaintiff asks that the Court
order the parties to meet and confer on the date. However, because a meet and confer will likely

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

result in further delay, the Court declines to follow this approach and instead orders as follows.

12

Defendants now have until December 7, 2012, to issue the transportation letter(s) and send the

13

letter(s) to the American embassy in Switzerland. The start date for the validity of the letter(s) shall

14

be January 4, 2013. Defendants shall make their best efforts to ensure that the letter(s) arrive in

15

Tehran no later than January 4, 2013. Thus, e.g., Defendants should not delay in sending the

16

letter(s) from the American embassy in Bern to the Swiss embassy in Bern. As previously ordered,

17

the transportation letter(s) shall be valid for forty-five days (i.e., from January 4, 2013 to forty-five

18

days thereafter). This should be ample time for Plaintiff to purchase a ticket, even taking into the

19

time it will take for the letter(s) to be sent to Tehran.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: December 4, 2012

24
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

2