Maldonado v. Napolitano et al
ORDER denying without prejudice for renewal 3 Motion for Naturalization Pending Review of Petition for Declamatory Judgment - Plaintiff may refile his motion after defendants file their answer. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 09/09/2011. (Baker, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JANET NAPOLITANO and BUREAU OF
IMMIGRAnON AND CUSTOMS
This matter is before the court on pro se plaintiff's motion for "naturalization pending review
of petition for declamatory judgment" (DE # 3). The government has not responded. For the
continued efficient administration this matter, the court denies plaintiff's motion without prejudice
to renewal and directs plaintiff to refile the same after defendants file their answer.
Plaintiff filed motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on November 18, 2010. That
same day, plaintiff filed the instant motion. The motion to proceed IFP was referred to the United
States Magistrate Judge for review. On July 6, 2011, the magistrate judge entered order granting
leave to proceed IFP and plaintiffs complaint was filed the same day. The complaint incorporates
by reference the allegations in the instant motion.
As it now procedurally posed, the response time for the instant motion passed long before
defendants were ever served with complaint. As such, the matter is not fully briefed, and the court
is without benefit of defendants' response. To promote the efficient administration of this matter,
and ensure that defendants have sufficient opportunity to respond and that the court has the benefit
ofdefendants' response, the court DENIES plaintiff's motion (DE # 3) without prejudice to renewal.
Plaintiff may refile his motion after defendants file their answer.
SO ORDERED, this the Of +t, day of September, 2011.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
Chief United States District Judge
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?