Hamama et al v. Adducci
ORDER Extending Stay of Enforcement of Removal Orders Pending Court's Review of Jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
USAMA J. HAMAMA, et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-11910
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
REBECCA ADDUCCI, et al.,
ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF REMOVAL ORDERS
PENDING COURT’S REVIEW OF JURISDICTION
On June 22, 2017, the Court stayed the removal of Petitioners and all members of the class,
which at that time included only Iraqi nationals within the jurisdiction of the Detroit ICE Field
Office with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested and detained by ICE,
including those detained in Michigan and transferred outside of Michigan to other detention
locations. See 6/22/2017 Op. & Order at 6 (Dkt. 32). The Court entered a stay of class members’
removal for 14 days pending the Court’s jurisdictional determination. Id. On June 26, 2017, the
Court expanded the stay to include a class of individuals defined as all Iraqi nationals in the United
States with final orders of removals, who have been, or will be, arrested and detained by ICE as a
result of Iraq’s recent decision to issue travel documents to facilitate U.S. removal. See 6/26/2017
Op. & Order at 6 (Dkt. 43). Removal was stayed for 14 days for the expanded class, meaning that
the stay of removal orders for all class members is set to expire on July 10, 2017.1
Although, theoretically, it might be argued that the initial 14-day period expires today for the
initial class members, and on July 10, 2017 for the additional members added to the class, the
Government agrees that it “makes sense” to use July 10, 2017 as the expiration date for all class
members. See 7/5/2017 Tr. at 21 (Dkt. 59). That is the view of Petitioners, as well.
At the July 5, 2017 hearing on Petitioners’ motion to extend the stay and expedite briefing
(Dkt. 50), the Government took the position that the Court could extend the stay for an additional
14 days beyond July 10, 2017, i.e., until July 24, 2017. 7/5/2017 Tr. at 21. This was based on
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), which states that a temporary restraining order “expires
at the time after entry – not to exceed 14 days – that the court sets, unless before that time the
court, for good cause, extends it for a like period[.]” Plaintiffs questioned whether the time limits
in that section of the court rule apply in our circumstances -- where notice was given and a hearing
conducted -- given that the limits appear to apply to a temporary restraining order issued without
notice. Id. at 28.
The Court need not resolve this dispute, inasmuch as it undisputed that the Court may
extend the stay at least until July 24, 2017. And any extension thereafter would not raise an issue
regarding the power of the Court to extend, but only whether an additional extension would make
the stay appealable as of right.
Both sides agree that good cause is required for extending the stay. Courts have found
good cause established where the conditions that warranted initial equitable relief are still present.
See 11A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2953 (3d ed.). The Court entered the initial
and expanded stays to evaluate whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
In light of the
complexity of the issue involved and the time necessary to prepare an opinion – along with the
essentially unchanged facts relative to the equitable factors that were taken into account – the Court
is faced with the same circumstances that were extant when the stays were entered. Furthermore,
the pendency of other emergency matters on the Court’s docket have made it difficult to issue an
opinion on jurisdiction – another circumstance establishing good cause. See Am. Sys. Consulting,
Inc. v. Devier, 514 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1010 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (“It would be inequitable for Plaintiff
to lose a lawfully obtained injunction . . . simply based on the circumstances of scheduling
As a result, there is good cause to extend the stay order beyond July 10, 2017. The Court
orders that the stay of removal for all members of the class, both original members and those added
by way of the expanded definition, shall now expire on July 24, 2017 at 11:59 p.m., unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
By this Order, the Court grants, in part, Petitioners’ motion for extension of stay (Dkt. 50).
The additional request in that motion for accelerated briefing on a forthcoming motion for
preliminary injunction and Petitioners’ motion to expedite discovery (Dkt. 51) will be addressed
in a further order.
Dated: July 6, 2017
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail
addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 6, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?