(PS) Starchyk v. US Department of Homeland Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VLADISLAV VYACHESLAVOVICH No. 2:19-cv-1796 TLN DB PS STARCHYK, 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND MATERIALS FOR SERVICE 14 v. AND REQUIRING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL 15 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 16 IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Vladislav Starchyk is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. 20 This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 10, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed 22 in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the denial of plaintiff’s 23 petition for naturalization “N-400” application. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 6.) 24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 25 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 26 2000) (en banc). Here, the complaint alleges that defendants continue to deny plaintiff’s N-400 27 application due to a failure to show good moral character. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 6.) 28 //// 1 “[D]istrict courts have limited jurisdiction over the naturalization process.” Abghari v. 2 Gonzales, 596 F.Supp.2d 1336, 1342 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421: 3 A person whose application for naturalization under this subchapter is denied, after a hearing before an immigration officer under section 4 1447(a) of this Title, may seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such person 5 resides in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5. Such review shall be de novo, and the court shall make its own findings of fact and 6 conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application. 7 8 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Accordingly, this court “is authorized to conduct a de novo review of” such 9 N-400 applications. Hajro v. Barrett, 849 F.Supp.2d 945, 958 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s September 10, 2019 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 12 granted. 13 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to send plaintiff an instruction 14 sheet for service of process by the United States Marshal, one USM-285 form for each defendant, 15 a summons form, and an endorsed copy of plaintiff’s complaint filed September 10, 2019. (ECF 16 No. 1.) 17 3. Within sixty (60) days after this order is served, plaintiff shall supply the U.S. Marshal 18 all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process. The required documents shall 19 be submitted directly to the United States Marshal either by personal delivery or by mail to: 20 United States Marshals Service, 501 I Street, Suite 5600, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930- 21 2030). The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require, for each 22 defendant, at least: 23 a. One completed summons; 24 b. One completed USM-285 form; 25 c. One copy of the endorsed complaint, with an extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; 26 and 27 d. One copy of the instant order. 28 //// 1 4. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on 2 a defendant within 90 days of receiving this order the Marshal is directed to report that fact, and 3 the reasons for it, to the undersigned. 4 5. Within twenty (20) days after submitting the required materials to the United States 5 Marshals Service, plaintiff shall file with this court a declaration stating the date on which 6 plaintiff submitted the required documents to the United States Marshal. Failure to file the 7 declaration in a timely manner may result in an order imposing appropriate sanctions. 8 6. Within sixty (60) days after receiving the necessary materials from plaintiff the United 9 States Marshal is directed to serve process on defendants without prepayment of costs. 10 7. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order may result in a 11 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 12 DATED: March 30, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/starchyk1796.serv.ord 26 27 28