Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia provides pro se plaintiff Chirag Patel notice and an opportunity to respond to USCIS’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Court warns that failure to respond within twenty-one days may result in dismissal and explains the distinction between facial and factual jurisdictional attacks.
Questions Presented
- What notice and opportunity to respond should be provided to a pro se plaintiff before the court resolves USCIS's Rule 12(b)(1) motion?
- What standards govern USCIS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1985)(followed)
- OSI, Inc. v. United States, 285 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs. M.D.'s, 104 F.3d 1256, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Stalley v. Orlando Reg'l Heathcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Soliman v. U.S. ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…