Ali v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 57

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 5/12/2011. (awe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 10-80338-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
MOHAMMED S. ALI,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has reviewed the
record in this case and is otherwise advised in the premises.
On or about December 1998, Plaintiff Mohammed S. Ali, a Bangladesh citizen,
arrived in the United States on board a ship and disembarked without presenting
himself for inspection. Now, Plaintiff resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.
On or about May 6, 2002, Plaintiff filed an Application to Register Permanent
Resident or Adjust Status (“I-485 Application”) with the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”). On March 3, 2010, when USCIS had not yet provided
a decision regarding the I-485 Application, Plaintiff brought this action [DE 1],
requesting a decision on his application. The next day, the Court ordered Defendants
to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted [DE 4]. On March 19,
2010, USCIS denied Plaintiff’s I-485 Application, concluding that he was a stowaway
and was therefore inadmissible to the United States.

Thereafter, on April 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint [DE 10],
seeking review of USCIS’s denial of his I-485 Application. After Defendants moved to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint and the parties completed their briefing on that
motion, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint [DE 30] on September 10, 2010.
On December 9, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint [DE 45]. Plaintiff then filed his Third Amended Complaint [DE 46]
on December 22, 2010. The same day, Defendants revoked Plaintiff’s I-140 Petition for
Alien Worker, finding that he was not actually employed by the employer for which he
claimed to work.
On April 22, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint [DE 56], allowing Plaintiff until May 5, 2011 to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint. The Order warned, “Plaintiff’s failure to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint will result in the closing of this case.” DE 56 at 10.
Plaintiff has failed to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, and the May 5th deadline
has now passed. This Court has the inherent authority to dismiss actions for failure to
prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court
is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 12th day of May, 2011.

Copy provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF
2