Gholibeigian v. Rubio
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-07885
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Parvin Gholibeigian v. Marco Rubio, Judge Cousins granted a fee waiver, found the complaint passed screening, and ordered service.
Parvin Gholibeigian, the defendants, and the U.S. Marshal and Clerk of Court involved in serving the case.
What happened
Parvin Gholibeigian v. Marco Rubio, et al. concerns a self-represented complaint seeking an order requiring the defendants to finish deciding her husband’s immigration visa application. She also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court granted her amended fee-waiver application after finding that she could not afford the filing fee. It screened the complaint and found that it stated at least one legally recognized claim and was not otherwise frivolous, malicious, or seeking money from immune defendants.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered the clerk to issue a summons and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants without requiring advance payment of service fees. The order states that the defendants may still challenge the claims or raise defenses.
The detailed version
- Gholibeigian v. Rubio · No. 5:25-cv-07885
- Nathanael Cousins
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
Parvin Gholibeigian, who represented herself, filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus—a court order requiring government officials to take an action. Her requested relief was to require the defendants to complete adjudication of her husband’s immigration visa application. She also applied to proceed without paying the case filing fee.
The court had previously found her initial fee application incomplete and ordered her either to submit an amended application or pay the filing fee. She submitted an amended application.
Rulings
The court granted the amended application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that she could not afford the fee.
Because she was allowed to proceed without paying the fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Screening is an initial review used to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court found that the complaint stated at least one cognizable claim on its face and was not otherwise frivolous, malicious, or seeking monetary relief from immune defendants. The complaint therefore satisfied the screening requirements.
Disposition
The court ordered the clerk to issue the summons. It also directed the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California to serve the defendants with the complaint and the order without requiring advance payment of service fees. The order states that the defendants are not precluded from challenging the claims or raising defenses. The court did not decide the merits of the request concerning the immigration visa application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.