Singh v. United States Department of Homeland Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HANMEET SINGH, Case No. 1:23-CV-00680-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CLOSE 13 v. CASE AND ADJUST THE DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 9) 16 17 Plaintiff Hanmeet Singh initiated this immigration action against Defendants United 18 States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro 19 Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Ted H. Kim, and Emilia Bardini (collectively, “Defendants”) on 20 May 3, 2023, claiming that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has 21 unreasonably delayed scheduling an interview on his pending asylum application. (ECF No. 1.) 22 Defendants were served on May 22, 2023, and have not yet responded to the complaint. (See 23 ECF No. 6.) On June 9, 2023, the parties filed a stipulated request to hold the instant matter in 24 temporary abeyance until October 5, 2023, to allow USCIS to conduct Plaintiff’s asylum 25 interview on September 5, 2023, the occurrence upon which the parties anticipated would render 26 the instant action moot. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted the parties’ request on June 12, 2023. 27 (ECF No. 8.) /// 1 On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the entire action 2 | without prejudice and with each party to bear its own costs and fees. (ECF No. 9.) Under Rule 3 | 41(a)(1)(A)G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to 4 | voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for 5 | summary judgment.’ ” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 6 | 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). 7 In light of the notice of dismissal, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 | 41(a)1)(A)G@); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d at 692, and has been dismissed without 9 | prejudice and without an award of costs or attorneys’ fees. 10 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to 11 | this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary 12 | dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 15 | Dated: _September 19, 2023 _ Oe 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28