Oluwarotimi Julius Erukilede v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLUWAROTIMI JULIUS ERUKILEDE, No. 2:25-cv-02063-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A status conference was held in this matter 19 on July 9, 2026, and Plaintiff did not appear. Plaintiff is now directed to show cause why the 20 action should not be dismissed as moot. 21 I. Background and Procedural History 22 Plaintiff instituted this action on July 24, 2025, by filing a petition for writ of mandamus 23 (“Petition”) and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1-2. The Petition named as 24 Defendants the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the director of 25 USCIS, the director of the USCIS National Benefit Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 26 and the U.S. Attorney General. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff claimed that he filed a form I-485 27 seeking adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under the EB-3 unskilled worker 28 category in September 2021. Id. at ¶ 9. He alleged that in April 2022, his application was 1 transferred to the USCIS National Benefits Center for faster processing, but was in “case remains 2 pending” status for over three years. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff claimed he had completed all 3 prerequisites for adjudication and followed up multiple times regarding the status. Id. at ¶¶ 14- 4 15. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate his application 5 without further delay. Id. at ¶ 25. 6 On August 4, 2025, the Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 7 directed service of the Petition. ECF No. 3. After being granted an extension of time to answer, 8 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 13, 2026. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff opposed the 9 motion. ECF No. 29. The Defendants’ reply brief noted that the agency had issued a Notice of 10 Intent to Deny and that Plaintiff had until May 11, 2026 to respond. ECF No. 30. 11 The motion to dismiss was set for hearing on July 9, 2026. On June 30, 2026, Defendants 12 filed a Status Report informing the Court that as of June 30, 2026, the agency had completed its 13 adjudication of Plaintiff’s application, and contending that this matter is now moot. Defendants 14 requested the Court convert the motion to dismiss hearing to a status conference, which the Court 15 did. ECF No. 33. 16 II. Mootness 17 Plaintiff’s Petition sought to compel adjudication of his I-485 application. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 18 25. Defendants now represent that the application was been adjudicated. It appears that Plaintiff 19 has obtained the relief sought in the Petition, and that the action is moot. See Pitts v. Terrible 20 Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[I]f events subsequent to the filing of the case 21 resolve the parties’ dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot, because we do not have the 22 constitutional authority to decide moot cases.”) (citation and quotation omitted); see also 23 Aldarwich v. Hazuda, 593 F.App’x 654, 655 (9th Cir. 2015) (“To the extent that Aldarwich's 24 complaint sought to compel [USCIS] to adjudicate his application for adjustment of status and to 25 declare that he was not inadmissible, that claim became moot when the USCIS denied the 26 application during the district court proceedings.”). 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, within 14 days of the date of this Order, why 1 this action should not be dismissed as moot. 2 2. If Plaintiff contends the action is not moot, Plaintiff shall file a legal memo, not to 3 exceed 10 pages, setting forth the factual and legal basis for his contention. 4 3. If Plaintiff agrees that the action is moot, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary 5 dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. 6 4. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order, the Court will recommend dismissal of the 7 action. 8 | SO ORDERED. 9 | DATED: July 9, 2026 10 /

11 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28