Ghosheh, et al v. Angela Barrows, et al
Filing
88
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 76 Plaintiff's Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of Court re 70 Judgment. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 6/14/2016) (ykp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RIAD GHOSHEH, ET AL.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
VS.
)
)
JEH JOHNSON, in his official capacity as )
)
Secretary of the United States
Department of Homeland Security,
)
)
ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:03-CV-0010-G
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion to hold the defendants in contempt of
court (docket entry 76). For the reasons stated below, the plaintiffs’ motion is
denied.
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 26, 2004, the court entered judgment in this case (docket entry
70). The court entered judgment pursuant to a memorandum order of the same date
(docket entry 69). The court ordered “(1) that the defendants shall, as required by 8
U.S.C. § 1154(j), treat as valid the Visa Petition of the plaintiff Riad Ghosheh for the
purposes of adjudicating the plaintiffs’ Adjustment Applications; (2) that all other
relief sought by any party is DENIED; and (3) that each party shall bear his/her/its
own costs of court.” Judgment dated February 26, 2004 (docket entry 70) (emphasis
in original).
In April 2004, February 2005, and April 2005, the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Texas Service Center treated the adjustment
applications as reopened based on the valid I-140 visa petition by granting the
plaintiffs’ applications for employment authorization. See Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of Court (“Response”) at 2
(docket entry 87) (citing Appendix in Support of Defendants’ Response to Motion to
Hold Defendants in Contempt of Court (“App.”) at 006-012 (docket entry 87-1)).
USCIS formally reopened the adjustment applications in April and May 2005.
Response at 2 (citing App. at 001-04). On May 13, 2005, USCIS transferred the
adjustment applications to the USCIS Dallas Field Office, where the applications
remain pending. Response at 2 (citing App. at 005), 7.
On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed the instant motion averring that the
Department of Homeland Security had not complied with the court’s order and
judgment. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt of Court (“Motion”)
¶ 1 (docket entry 76). The plaintiffs request that the court hold the defendants in
contempt of court for failing to following the court’s order granting the plaintiffs’
-2-
mandatory injunctive relief and “impose on the defendants a penalty sufficient to
motivate them to perform immediately their 12-year overdue ministerial duty to
decide the Plaintiffs’ applications for adjustment of status.” Id. ¶ 5. The defendants
filed a timely response (docket entry 87), in which they contended that they fully
complied with the court’s order. The plaintiffs did not file a timely reply. The
motion is thus ripe for decision.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
To prove that the defendants should be held in civil contempt, the plaintiffs
“must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) a court order was in effect,
(2) the order required specified conduct by the respondent, and (3) the respondent
failed to comply with the court’s order.” United States v. City of Jackson, Mississippi,
359 F.3d 727, 731 (5th Cir. 2004). In the contempt context, “clear and convincing
evidence” is “that weight of proof which produces in the mind of the trier of fact a
firm belief or conviction as to truth of the allegations sought to be established,
evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to
come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the
case.” Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (adopting in contempt context definition of clear and
convincing evidence used in attorney disbarment proceeding) (quoting In re Medrano,
-3-
956 F.2d 101, 102 (5th Cir. 1992)). “The contemptuous actions need not be willful
so long as the contemnor actually failed to comply with the court's order.” American
Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Association, 228 F.3d 574, 581 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing
National Labor Relations Board v. Trailways, Inc., 729 F.2d 1013, 1017 (5th Cir.
1984)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1191 (2001). “In civil contempt proceedings the
question is not one of intent but whether the alleged contemnors have complied with
the court’s order.” Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers
of America, 609 F.2d 165, 168 (5th Cir. 1980) (internal quotations omitted). “Good
faith is not a defense to civil contempt; the question is whether the alleged contemnor
complied with the court’s order.” Chao v. Transocean Offshore, Inc., 276 F.3d 725, 728
(5th Cir. 2002).
B. Discussion
The plaintiffs maintain that the defendants have not complied with the court’s
order of February 26, 2004. Motion ¶ 1. In response, the defendants contend that
they complied with the court’s order. Response at 2. To support their contention,
the defendants attach USCIS documents showing that the USCIS reopened the
adjustment applications, App. at 001-04, and treated the adjustment applications as
reopened based on the valid I-140 visa petition by granting the adjustment
applications for employment authorization. App. at 006-012. Thereafter, the
defendants transferred the application to the Dallas field office, where the
-4-
applications are still pending. Response at 7. The defendants claim that they have
not taken any action in contradiction of the court’s February 26, 2004 order. Id.
The plaintiffs offered no evidence to support their claim that the defendants
have failed to comply with the court’s order. See generally Motion. The defendants,
on the other hand, have offered proof that they complied with the court’s order.
App. at 001-012. Since the plaintiffs have offered no evidence that the defendants
violated this court’s order, and the defendants have offered proof they have complied
with this court’s order, the plaintiffs have failed to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendants should be held in contempt of court for failing to
comply with this court’s order. Travelhost, Inc., 68 F.3d at 961. Therefore, the
plaintiffs’ motion to hold defendants in contempt of court is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs’ motion to hold the defendants in
contempt of court (docket entry 76) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
June 14, 2016.
___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge
-5-
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?