MEDINA v. BEERS et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF AND UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS GRANTED; DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT CLAIM IS DENIED ; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT CLAIM IS GRANTED; THIS CASE SHALL BE REMANDED TO THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE ACCOMPANYING MEM ORANDUM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL AND NORTHWEST IMMIGRATION RIGHTS PROJECT [#27] AND DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE [#30], THE MOTION TO FILE AN AMICI BRIEF IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 11/5/14. 11/5/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MELVIN MEDINA and CATHERINE
RAND BEERS, Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
AND NOW, this 5th day of November, 2014, upon consideration of the Motion for
Summary Judgment and Partial Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Rand Beers, Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland of Security; Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Lori Scialaba, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”); and Evangelia Klapakis, Director of the Philadelphia USCIS District Office
(collectively “Defendants”) (Docket No. 18), the Response and Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment by Plaintiffs Melvin Medina and Catherine Medina (Docket No. 23), and Defendants’
Response (Docket No. 29), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for mandamus relief and under
the Due Process Clause is GRANTED;
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Administrative Procedures
Act claim is DENIED;
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Administrative Procedures
Act claim is GRANTED;
This case shall be REMANDED to the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Service for further proceedings consistent with the accompanying
It is FURTHER ORDERED that, upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to File
Amici Brief on Behalf of the American Immigration Council and Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project (Docket No. 27) and Defendants’ Response (Docket No. 30), the Motion to File an Amici
Brief is DENIED.1
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.
The standards for filing an amicus brief are set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
29. Under Rule 29(a), a private amicus may file if all parties consent or if the court grants leave.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(a). “When a party objects to filing by a private amicus and leave of court is
sought, Rule 29(b) provides that the motion for leave to file must be accompanied by the
proposed brief and must state: (1) the movant’s interest; and (2) the reason why an amicus brief
is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case. Although the
Rule does not say expressly that a motion for leave to file should be denied if the movant does
not meet the requirements of (a) an adequate interest, (b) desirability, and (c) relevance, this is
implicit.” Neonatology Assoc., P.A. v. C.I.R. 293 F.3d 128, 130–31 (3d Cir. 2002).
In this case, the proposed amici brief sets forth many of the same arguments that have
already been thoroughly discussed in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion
for Summary Judgment and in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. As this
Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ arguments, consideration of the amici brief would be an exercise in
redundancy. Accordingly, the Court denies Amici’s Motion for Leave to File and relies solely on
the briefs submitted by the parties.
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?