Chavez v. Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 6:18-cv-1045-Orl-31DCI. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20180719a74
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . This Matter comes before the Court on the Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8), filed July 18, 2018. The Plaintiff previously filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on July 3, 2018. Doc. 2. The Court denied that Motion (Doc. 2) as moot in light of the government's representation that the Plaintiff would not be detained on her then-impending ICE report date, but instead would be given a new report date, due to
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . This Matter comes before the Court on the Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8), filed July 18, 2018. The Plaintiff previously filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on July 3, 2018. Doc. 2. The Court denied that Motion (Doc. 2) as moot in light of the government's representation that the Plaintiff would not be detained on her then-impending ICE report date, but instead would be given a new report date, due to ..
More
ORDER
GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.
This Matter comes before the Court on the Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8), filed July 18, 2018. The Plaintiff previously filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on July 3, 2018. Doc. 2. The Court denied that Motion (Doc. 2) as moot in light of the government's representation that the Plaintiff would not be detained on her then-impending ICE report date, but instead would be given a new report date, due to her pending Application for Stay. Doc. 6. According to the Plaintiff, she has been given a new report date—July 10, 2019—and her Application for Stay remains pending. On its face, the instant Motion shows no emergency, nor does it show a constitutional violation. Additionally, it appears the Plaintiff made no effort to serve the Defendants.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
