ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the motion for entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) (ECF No. 171) filed by Plaintiff-Petitioner Oscar Olivas.

On June 12, 2014, this matter was initiated when Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1). In addition to the request for habeas relief, Plaintiff-Petitioner alleged four claims: (1) Right of U.S. Citizen to Return to United States under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Non-Detention Act; (2) Right of U.S. Citizen Against Unlawful Detention under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Non-Detention Act; (3) Violation of Fifth Amendment (Procedural Due Process); and (4) Violation of Fifth Amendment (Substantive Due Process).1

On June 28, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 167).

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a motion for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (ECF No. 171). Plaintiff-Petitioner requests that the Court enter judgment on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the first and second claims of the Complaint, asserting that the first and second claims were "effectively disposed of" in the June 28, 2016 Order and are not independent of the habeas claim. (ECF No. 171-1 at 2).

On August 8, 2016, Defendants-Respondents filed a response to the motion for entry of judgment. (ECF No. 175). Defendants-Respondents do not oppose the motion for entry of judgment on the denial of the habeas claim. However, Defendants-Respondents oppose the request for entry of Rule 54(b) judgment on the first and second causes of action because the claims have not been adjudicated. On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 176).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that "[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

The Court concludes that the first and second claims have not been adjudicated and therefore a judgment cannot be entered on claims one and two. The inability of Plaintiff-Petitioner to enter the United States while issues related to his claims to citizenship remain unresolved is a significant factor. However, the four remaining claims have not been adjudicated and present issues intertwined with the habeas claim to such an extent that resolving all claims prior to an appeal will serve the interests of justice.

The Court concludes that the parties have not demonstrated that resolving the remaining claims would require lengthy delay sufficient to justify granting the Rule 54(b) motion. The remaining claims can be resolved expeditiously. The Rule 54(b) motion is denied at this stage in the proceedings. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding the resolution of the remaining claims within seven days of the entry of this Order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) (ECF No. 171) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a status report regarding the resolution of the remaining claims within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order.