Yayomi Kanai v. United States Department of Homeland Security

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 17, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-05345
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 20-CV-05345-CBM-KS Date June 17, 2020

Title Yayomi Kanai v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Present: The Honorable CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE YOLANDA SKIPPER NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DKT. NO. 2

Plaintiff Yayomi Kanai filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order on June 16, 2020 (the “Application”). (Dkt. No. 2.) In the Application, Plaintiff argues the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seg. (Dkt. No. 2 at p. 5: see also Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.) § 16.) The Ninth Circuit holds that “despite the broad language of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is well settled that the APA does not independently confer jurisdiction on the district courts.” Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 159 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1998): see also Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1171 (9th Cir. 2017). “Rather[,] the APA prescribes standards for judicial review of an agency action, once jurisdiction is otherwise established.” Id. Neither the Complaint nor the Application identify the decision issued by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) as final, or authority providing that a district court may review that decision. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this Court has jurisdiction over this action no later than June 18, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff's supplemental brief regarding jurisdiction should address whether the decision of the USCIS was final, the statutory authority under which this Court may review that decision, and/or authority supporting jurisdiction in this case. Furthermore, the Court directs counsel for Plaintiff to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and Local Rule 5.2-1, both addressing privacy protections for filings made with the Court, because exhibits filed concurrently with the Application contain the social security number, home address, birth date, and other personal information of individuals involved in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

□□ .