Legal Opinion
Faustino v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 17, 1969No. 68 Civ. 1559PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CANNELLA, District Judge.
Motion by plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282 and 2284 to convene a three judge court, is denied. Motion by plaintiff pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment granting injunctive relief, is denied. Motion by defendant pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment dismissing complaint, is granted.
The jurisdictional predicate is not enunciated by the plaintiff in the complaint. Clearly, the request for convocation of a three judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282, 2284 will not suffice. However, the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Hintopoulos v. ShaughnessySupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Oskar Gruenwald v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and WelfareCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Manuel Mendez and Teresa Lastra De Mendez v. H. I. Major, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965
- Isao Hitai, Also Known as Mario Isao Hitai v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Papageorgiou v. EsperdyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1963
3Cited by13 opinions
- Stokes v. United States, Immigration & Nat. Serv.District Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- Susan M. Faustino, an Infant Under the Age of 14 Years, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, Albano Vieira v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- Application of AmouryDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- Shodeke v. Attorney General of the United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1975
- KIMBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.