Alghalayini v. Blinken et al
| NAWAL ALGHALAYINI |
| Anthony J. Blinken and Lloyd Austin |
| 4:2023cv05587 |
| October 30, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Donna M Ryu |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by NAWAL ALGHALAYINI (Shamieh, Ghassan) (Filed on 11/3/2023) |
Filing 3
ORDER: The court has reviewed Plaintiff's Emergency Complaint for Writ of Mandamus with Request for Injunctive Relief. The allegations in the complaint suggest that Plaintiff may be seeking a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and/or a preliminary injunction. The standards for issuing a TRO and a preliminary injunction are essentially the same. See Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). An application for preliminary relief requires Plaintiff to "establish that [s]he is likely to succeed on the merits, that [s]he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [her] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). If Plaintiff seeks a TRO and/or preliminary injunction, she must submit briefing and evidence addressing the relevant factors. In addition, the court cannot decide a dispositive motion such as this without the consent of all parties, served and unserved. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017). In other words, the court cannot decide Plaintiff's motion for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction unless Plaintiff as well as Defendants Anthony J. Blinken and Lloyd Austin have consented to the jurisdiction of this court. The parties may indicate whether they consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge in this matter by filing the Consent/Declination Form available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. If the parties do not consent, the case will be randomly assigned to a District Judge of this court. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 10/31/2023. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2023)
|
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 11/14/2023. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2023) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against NAWAL ALGHALAYINI ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACANDC-18787942.). Filed by NAWAL ALGHALAYINI. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Shamieh, Ghassan) (Filed on 10/30/2023) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
