(PS) Erukilede v. USCIS

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02063
• Status: Unknown

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 14 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 19 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed 20 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted a declaration containing information on income and 21 assets and averring an inability to pay the costs of this proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 22 The motion to proceed IFP is granted. Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry, 23 however, as the Court is required by Section 1915(e)(2) to screen the complaint and must dismiss 24 an action if it is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 25 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(e)(2). The Court concludes that, for screening purposes only, Plaintiff’s claims are 27 sufficiently cognizable and directs service. 28 //// 1 I. SCREENING 2 A. Legal Standard 3 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 6 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain 7 statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, 8 rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to 9 relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 12 B. Petition for Writ of Mandamus 13 Plaintiff was filed a petition for writ of mandamus (“Petition”) and names as Defendants 14 the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the director of USCIS, the 15 director of the USCIS National Benefit Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the U.S. 16 Attorney General. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and also under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Id. at 18 2. Plaintiff alleges that he filed a form I-485 seeking adjustment of status to lawful permanent 19 resident under the EB-3 unskilled worker category in September 2021. Id. at ¶ 9. He states in 20 April 2022 his application was transferred to the USCIS National Benefits Center for faster 21 processing, but has been in “case remains pending” status for over three years. Id. at ¶ 11. 22 Plaintiff alleges that he has completed all prerequisites for adjudication and has followed up 23 multiple times regarding the status. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus 24 compelling Defendants to adjudicate his application without further delay. Id. at ¶ 25. 25 C. Analysis 26 The Petition contains a jurisdictional statement, a short and plain statement of the claim, 27 and a request for relief. For screening purposes, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim. See Saini 28 //// 1 v. USCIS, 553 F.Supp.2d 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Mugomoke v. Curda, 2012 WL 113800 (E.D. 2 Cal. Jan. 13, 2012). 3 II. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 6 2. Service of the Petition (ECF No. 1) on the following four Defendants is appropriate: 1) 7 Joseph Edlow, Director of USCIS; 2) Robert Cowan, Director of USCIS National Benefit 8 Center; 3) Krisi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and 4) Pam 9 Bondi, Attorney General. An agency or officer of the United States may be served as 10 provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to 12 serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Federal Rule of 13 Civil Procedure 4, without prepayment of costs. 14 4. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff the above: one USM-285, one summons, a 15 copy of the Petition, and an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 16 5. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date this order is 17 filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall 18 promptly file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the 19 United States Marshal. The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will 20 require, for each defendant named in the Petition, at least: 21 a. One completed summons; 22 b. One completed USM-285 form; 23 c. One copy of the endorsed filed Petition, with an extra copy for the U.S. 24 Marshal; 25 d. One copy of the instant order; and 26 e. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 27 6. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on the 28 Defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is directed to report that 1 fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned. 2 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal, 501 3 “T” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030. 4 8. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 5 dismissed. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | DATED: August 1, 2025 Kink 9 SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28