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)

Download PDF
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

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?