Mousa v. Trump Administration et al, No. 1:2019cv01349 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 18 19 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 13 16 Motions for Injunctive Relief and Dismissing Bivens Action With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMED SALADDIN MOUSA, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01349-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIF AND DISMISSING BIVENS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM v. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. (ECF Nos. 13, 16, 18, 19) 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Mohamed Saladdin Mousa, a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 21 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his complaint, plaintiff alleges generally that since 22 June 2019, he has been sending letters to the Director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement 23 (ICE) in Bakersfield requesting that he be taken to court on an ICE detainer but has received no 24 response. (Doc. No. 17.) He seeks damages in compensation. (Id.) The matter was referred to 25 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 26 On December 16, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 27 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s two motions for injunctive relief be denied, 28 reasoning that the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s requests to determine the 1 1 merits of his claim that he is exempt from deportation. (Doc. No. 18.) The findings and 2 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be 3 filed within thirty days from the date of service. On December 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 17.) On 4 5 December 17, 2019, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and issued 6 findings and recommendations, recommending that this matter be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure 7 to state a cognizable Bivens claim. (Doc. No. 19.) The findings and recommendations were 8 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days 9 from the date of service. Subsequently on December 27, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of change 10 of address. (Doc. No. 20.) Thereafter, on December 31, 2019, consistent with plaintiff’s notice 11 of change of address, the December 17, 2019 findings and recommendations were returned to 12 this court as undeliverable.1 On January 2, 2020, the December 17, 2019 findings and 13 recommendations were re-served on plaintiff at his updated address of record. The period for plaintiff to have filed objections to the pending findings and 14 15 recommendations has passed and no objections have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 16 17 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds both sets of 18 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. The findings and recommendations, filed December 16, 2019 (Doc. No. 18) and December 17, 2019 (Doc. No. 19), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 21 2. 22 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed November 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 13) and 23 motion to lift the pending hold or grant an evidentiary hearing filed December 16, 24 2019 (Doc. No. 16) are DENIED; 3. 25 WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a cognizable claim; 26 27 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint under Bivens (Doc. No. 17) is DISMISSED 1 The December 16, 2019 findings and recommendations were not, however, returned to the 28 court as undeliverable. 2 1 4. of closing the case; and 2 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.