Zhu v. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al
Filing
9
DECISION and ORDER: that the ECF. No. 6 Report-Recommendation is adopted in whole; that plaintiff's letter motion, ECF No. 7 , is construed as a proposed amended complaint in accordance with the directive in Judge Stewart's Report-Recomm endation; that after initial review of plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, his claim under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b) is Dismissed but the remainder of the amended complaint is accepted for filing; that the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve summonses and defendants are directed to answer or otherwise move in accordance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and that the Plaintiff's second motion to proceed IFP, ECF No. 8 , is denied as moot. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 07/17/2019. (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail at 5035 S. Catherine Street, Mailbox 43, Plattsburgh, NY 12901 on 7/17/2019.)(hmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------GUANGWEI ZHU,
Plaintiff,
-v-
8:18-CV-602
(DNH/DJS)
THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES and THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:
GUANGWEI ZHU
Plaintiff pro se
5035 S. Catherine Street
Mailbox 43
Plattsburgh, NY 12901
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Guangwei Zhu brought this civil complaint against the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the United States Department of Homeland
Security. On June 19, 2018, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate
Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act
claims be permitted to proceed. He further recommended that the complaint be dismissed
as to plaintiff's claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) but that plaintiff be granted leave to amend his
complaint. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.
However, on September 21, 2018, plaintiff filed a letter motion requesting to submit
an amended complaint and attached his proposed amended complaint which adds several
new defendants, including naming specific defendants with United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services and United States Department of Homeland Security, as well as the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Attorney General of the United
States.
First, based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Though the filing of plaintiff's proposed amended complaint was premature as
the Report-Recommendation had not yet been acted upon, it will nonetheless be considered
at this time.
Magistrate Judge Stewart's initial review took issue with plaintiff's claim under
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and recommended that claim be dismissed unless plaintiff could provide
facts in an amended complaint which would entitle him to relief. As Judge Stewart laid out,
§ 1447(b) does provide a private cause of action for a claimant who has been examined but,
after a period of 120 days, has had no decision rendered on his naturalization application.
See Escaler v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 582 F.3d 288, 291 (2d Cir. 2009).
The deficiency in plaintiff's claim was that he conceded that his background check remained
ongoing and it was not at all clear that he was even eligible for the interview. Accordingly,
Judge Stewart found that because plaintiff had not yet been examined, he had no cause of
action under § 1447(b).
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint does not indicate that his background
check has been completed, that he has been deemed eligible for an interview, or that such
-2-
an interview has taken place. Instead, he maintains that his background check remains
ongoing and that as a result, he has not yet been scheduled for an interview. He contends
that despite complying with the statutory and regulatory requirements for seeking
naturalization, defendants have failed to act on his naturalization application.
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint does not cure the deficiency in his
§ 1447(b) claim because he again fails to allege that his interview has taken place.
Therefore, the 120-day time period mandated by the statute has not even started to run.
Until his interview takes place and 120 days elapse after that interview with no decision,
plaintiff has no cause of action under § 1447(b).
Any claims regarding an unreasonable delay in completing plaintiff's background
check or scheduling his interview can be addressed through plaintiff's Administrative
Procedure Act claims.
Accordingly, plaintiff has had an opportunity to file an amended complaint and he
cannot state a claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) for the same reasons previously identified by
Judge Stewart. Plaintiff's § 1447(b) claim will be dismissed and the remainder of the
amended complaint will be permitted to proceed. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the
defendants in accordance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
defendants are directed to answer accordingly.
Finally, plaintiff's second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") will
be denied as he was previously granted IFP status and that status has not been rev oked.
ECF No. 5.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
-3-
1. The Report-Recommendation is adopted in whole;
2. Plaintiff's letter motion, ECF No. 7, is construed as a proposed amended
complaint in accordance with the directive in Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation;
3. After initial review of plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, his claim under
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) is DISMISSED but the remainder of the amended complaint is accepted
for filing;
4. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve summonses and defendants are directed
to answer or otherwise move in accordance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; and
5. Plaintiff's second motion to proceed IFP, ECF No. 8, is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2019
Utica, New York.
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?