Nguyen v. Homeland Security et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM RULING re 1 Complaint, filed by Don Van Nguyen. Signed by Judge Rebecca F Doherty on 07/21/09. (crt,Williams, L)

RECEIVED
JUL 2 1 Zoog
TONY p MOOR WESr~N~~ OFL~~ANA 01 I LO~~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \~[ESTE~ ISTRICT OF LOUISIANA D LAFAYETTE DIVISION

DON VAN NGUYEN VERSUS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, FT AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1 145 JUDGE DOHERTY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER Pending before this Court is the "Petition for Judicial Review" [Doe. 1] filed by pro se plaintiffDon Van Nguyen. Because the plaintiff is pro se, this Court has a heightened responsibility to ensure the plaintiffs filings are liberally construed. Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization on May 2, 2008. That application was ultimately denied on June 11,2009. Plaintiff seeks review of his unfavorable naturalization ruling in this Court pursuant to Section 3 10(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states: A person whose application for naturalization under this title is denied, afler a hearingbefore an immigration officer under section 336(a), may seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such person resides in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. Such review shall be de novo, and the court shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application. After review ofthe plaintiffs Petition, this Court has grave question concerning the available remedies requested in this Court, as well as the procedural posture presented by the Petition. It appears the Petition filed by the plaintiff has not been served on the defendants, but rather, the plaintiff has requested that the Clerk of Court serve the defendants. This Court has question as to

whetherthe request for service in the Petition is adequate, as it is not a function ofthe Clerk ofCourt to effect service on branches of the federal government. Additionally, this Court has question concerning whether it has jurisdiction over the instant lawsuit, as Section 3 10(c) requires that suit be brought in the "United States district court for the district in which [the applicant] resides." Although plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana, plaintiffs petition states plaintiff resides in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which is located in the Middle District ofLouisiana. Finally, plaintiffs petition does not state whether the matter has previously been submitted to a "hearing before an immigration officer under section 336(a)," as is required before the plaintiff may seek review in federal district court. Before this Court cart consider any substantive deficiencies occasioned by the plaintiffs filing, the lawsuit must be served on the appropriate defendants. Considering the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff has thirty (30) days to effect service on the proper United States agency, or the Petition for Judicial Review as filed must be denied. THUS
______________

DONE AND 2009.

SIGNED in Lafayette, Louisiana, this

______ _ ___

day of

F. DOHERTY DISTRICT JUDGE

2