Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 53

ORDER Re 51 Plaintiff's Reply Brief. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/6/2011. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

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 RE PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
BRIEF
(Docket No. 51)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

On December 1, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff Jamshid S. Kashannejad’s

17

motion to reconsider. The following day, Mr. Kashannejad filed a reply brief in support of his

18

motion to reconsider. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(d), Mr. Kashannejad was not permitted to file a

19

reply brief absent leave of the Court. Accordingly, the reply brief was improperly filed and, for that

20

reason alone, could be stricken from the record. In the interest of justice, however, the Court shall

21

briefly address the arguments raised in the brief.

22

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the arguments raised therein are new, i.e., never

23

raised during the summary judgment briefing, and therefore they are barred under Civil Local Rule

24

7-9(b)(3). See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3) (providing that a party moving for leave to file a motion to

25

reconsider must show a manifest failure by the Court to consider, e.g., dispositive legal arguments

26

“which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order”). Moreover, as the Court held

27

in its December 1 order, it would be improper for the Court to entertain many of the arguments

28

because, should deportation proceedings be initiated against Mr. Kashannejad, judicial review would

1

not lie with this Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (providing that “a petition for review filed with an

2

appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for

3

judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this Act”). Thus, to

4

the extent Mr. Kashannejad believes, e.g., that 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u)(2)(ii) may not be retroactively

5

applied to him, that is an argument that should be made to the Ninth Circuit on review, not to this

6

Court (assuming that Mr. Kashannejad is subject to a removal order and that he seeks judicial review

7

of that order). Finally, the Court notes that Mr. Kashannejad’s res judicata and collateral estoppel

8

arguments lack merit for the reasons already stated in its December 1 order.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: December 6, 2011

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2