Abdul Q. Mohibi v. Jessica Takeda

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-07112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDUL Q. MOHIBI, Case No. 25-cv-7112-MWC-RAO

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 14 DETECTIVE JESSICA TAKEDA, et ORDER AND PRELIMINARY al., INJUNCTION 15 Defendants. 16

17 On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff Abdul Q. Mohibi (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, 18 initiated this civil rights action, naming various law enforcement officers employed 19 by the Simi Valley Police Department as defendants.1 Dkt. No. 1. The Complaint 20 pleads several causes of action – unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth 21 Amendment; retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment; 22 violation of due process rights under the Fourth Amendment; Monell liability; and 23 conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Id. at 3-4. The 24 Complaint also seeks emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order 25

26 1 On August 1, 2025, the Clerk of the Court issued a Notice Re: Discrepancies in Filing Civil Rights Complaint, informing Plaintiff that he did not pay the appropriate 27 filing fee of $405.00 or, alternatively, submit a Request to Proceed without 28 Prepayment of Filing Fees. Dkt. No. 2. 1 and preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Id. at 6. 2 The events underlying the initiation of this action relate to a July 18, 2025 encounter 3 between Plaintiff and members of the Simi Valley Police Department in Ventura 4 County, California, that resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest and subsequent psychiatric hold. 5 Id. at 2-3. 6 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that 7 should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 8 persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) 9 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). The standards for issuing a temporary 10 restraining order and a preliminary injunction are “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg 11 Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). 12 In seeking preliminary injunctive relief, the movant must establish that: (1) he 13 is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable 14 harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; 15 and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 16 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff must “make a showing on all four 17 prongs” of Winter to obtain a preliminary injunction. All. for the Wild Rockies v. 18 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Ninth Circuit, courts apply a 19 sliding-scale approach. Id. Under this approach, a preliminary injunction may issue 20 where the plaintiff has raised “serious questions going to the merits”—rather than a 21 more complete showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—so long as the 22 balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor and the plaintiff satisfies the 23 other two Winter prongs. Id. 24 Plaintiff is not entitled to any preliminary injunctive relief under either Winter 25 or Alliance for the Wild Rockies. To date, none of the defendants named in the 26 Complaint have been served. As a result, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over 27 them. “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the 28 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine 1 || the rights of persons not before the court.” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 2 || 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements for 3 || requesting a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse 4 || party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 6 || Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 7 8 || DATED: August 5, 2025 (vce (We ° MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28