Campbell v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services
1:24-cv-00036
D.N.H.Sep 22, 2025Background
- Pro se plaintiff Desi-Rae Campbell, in forma pauperis, sues USCIS over a hyphen and lowercase letter allegedly omitted from her name in records.
- Campbell claims USCIS rejected requests to correct records, causing issues with immigration and employment paperwork.
- Court previously extended deadlines for Campbell to complete a medical examination required for her I-485 adjustment of status.
- Campbell cites lack of a valid driver’s license and travel limitations as impediments to completing the medical exam.
- The court combines multiple motions into a single decision and outlines numerous denials and one limited extension.
- The order grants a brief extension to October 14, 2025 to schedule proof of a medical examination, with no further extensions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to postpone the medical examination deadline | Campbell seeks multi-year extension due to license/travel issues. | Exhausted consideration; extension limited due to notice in 2024. | Grant limited extension to Oct. 14, 2025. |
| Whether to approve Campbell's permanent residency now | Requests immediate approval without further documentation. | Medical exam prerequisite; cannot approve without it. | Denied. |
| Whether to compel driver’s license relief or relate to USCIS records | Ask DMV to reflect Desi-Rae with hyphen; obtain license relief. | State DMV issues non-defendant; not within USCIS authority. | Denied. |
| Whether to interfere with state court proceedings | Ask federal court to stay state court actions. | Anti-Injunction Act limits such stays; no exception found. | Denied. |
| Whether to reopen/reconsider prior orders | Requests reconsideration of deadlines and orders. | Moot or not ripe; reopened proceedings already occurred. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1970) (Anti-Injunction Act and abstention from interfering with state courts)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (U.S. 2011) (federal courts should avoid staying state proceedings except narrow exceptions)
- In re Justices of Superior Ct. Dep't of Massachusetts Trial Ct., 218 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2000) (state court proceedings normally proceed without federal injunction)