Yashchenko v. Mayorkas

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 17, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01387
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 NATALIA ALEKSEYEVNA CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01387-LK 11 YASHCHENKO et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 Plaintiffs, FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED v. UNDER PSEUDONYMS 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the 14 Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion for Leave to 17 Proceed Under the Pseudonyms Jane Doe, John Doe, and Jack Doe. Dkt. No. 17.1 Defendants do 18 not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 17 at 2. However, Plaintiffs have not adequately supported their 19 motion. Specifically, the declaration that Plaintiffs submitted in support of their motion, Dkt. No. 20 21

22 1 Plaintiffs filed a “corrected” motion after filing an essentially identical original motion. See id. at 1; Dkt. No. 16. This is not the first time Plaintiffs have filed a “corrected” document. See Dkt. No. 6 at 1; Dkt. No. 7 at 1; Dkt. No. 14 at 1. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ motion violates Local Civil Rule 7(e)(6), which requires a word 23 count certification. The Court cautions Plaintiffs that future unexplained and potentially unnecessary multiplication of proceedings in this case, or submissions that fail to comply with the applicable rules, may result in sanctions. See 24 LCR 11(c). 1 17-1, is not compliant with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. That statute requires that the declaration be made 2 “substantially” in the following language: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of 3 perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).” 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2); see also 4 Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Topworth Int’l, Ltd., 205 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 1999).

5 The purpose of this affirmation is to be certain that “the declarant understands the legal 6 significance of the declarant’s statements and the potential for punishment if the declarant lies.” 7 United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs’ declaration does 8 not include a certification under penalty of perjury, nor does it contain a statement that the contents 9 of the declaration are true. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice. Dkt. 11 No. 17. 12 Dated this 17th day of November, 2023. 13 A 14 Lauren King United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23