Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mousa v. Trump Administration

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 13, 2019

MOHAMED SALADDIN MOUSA, Plaintiff,
v.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATINGS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF NOS. 13, 16) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

         Mohamed Saladdin Mousa (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief filed November 18, 2019 and December 12, 2019.

         I.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action seeking dismissal of an immigration detainer that is currently in place pending his release from prison. (ECF No. 1.) On October 3, 2019, findings and recommendations issued recommending dismissing this action as duplicative of an action filed in the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed objections on October 28, 2019, on the ground that the action filed in the Northern District has been transferred to the Eastern District of California and converted to a habeas petition. (ECF No. 9.)

         Based on Plaintiff's objection, the findings and recommendations was vacated on November 6, 2019. (ECF No. 11.)

         Plaintiff's complaint was screened and on November 15, 2019, an order issued finding that Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim and he was granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 12.) On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter seeking to have the immigration detainer lifted or an evidentiary hearing to prevent him from being deported. (ECF No. 13.) On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice that was stricken from the record as it was unsigned. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff refiled the letter seeking to have the immigration hold lifted or an evidentiary hearing to prevent him from being deported. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint.

         II.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to those cases that are authorized by the Constitution or statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Home Depot U.S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1746 reh'g denied, 140 S.Ct. 17 (2019). Procedurally, a federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party serve must appear to defend.”). Furthermore, the Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties in the particular action and to the viable legal claims upon which an action is proceeding. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

         “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

         III.

         DISCUSSION

         Here, Plaintiff has the same letter on November 18, 2019 and December 12, 2019 seeking injunctive relief. The letter seeks to lift a pending immigration detainer or for the Court to grant an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of his claim that he is exempt from deportation. Plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant a preliminary injunction.

         First, Plaintiff filed these requests while there is no operative complaint in the action. Plaintiff's complaint was screened and was found not to state a cognizable claim; and no defendant has been served with process in this action. Until one or more of the defendants have been served with process, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and may not grant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.