Shire v. Immigration Custom Enforcement

Filing 3

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion for TRO signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ABDIKADIR SHIRE,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

v.

Case No. C18-333-RAJ
ORDER

IMMIGRATION CUSTOM
ENFORCEMENT and FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Defendants.

14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Abdikadir Shire’s Motion

17

for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). Dkt. # 2. For the reasons that follow, the

18

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

19

A TRO is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

20

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,

21

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 1 To obtain a TRO, Plaintiff must show that (1) it is likely to

22

succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

23

preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in

24

the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009).

25
26
27
28

1

The standard for issuing a TRO is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary
injunction. New Motor Vehicle Bd. of California v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347
(1977).

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Having reviewed the motion, the complaint, and the applicable law, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has not carried its burden to establish these elements. Plaintiff
alleges that a federal agent shot him with a bullet that contains a transmitter G.P.S. and
that he was shot by Defendants in order to deport him. Dkt. ## 1, 2. Plaintiff provides no
other information or details to support his claim, or indicates exactly what claim he is
making against Defendants. Plaintiff also fails to state what injunctive relief he is
requesting. Even with the additional deference allowed for pro se litigants, Plaintiff has
not established a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of a
TRO, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public
interest. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO. Dkt. # 2.
DATED this 8th day of March, 2018.

12

14

A

15

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2