Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02096/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02096-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAVIN MAHARAJ,

Petitioner, No. C 05-2096 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY

MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Before this court is petitioner Maharaj’s motion for an emergency stay of removal

pending the resolution of his appeal, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Maharaj previously filed with his request for habeas relief a request for an emergency stay of

removal in this matter, which was granted on May 23, 2005. The government then moved to

dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the REAL ID Act of 2005

(“RIDA”). On June 28, 2005, the government’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition was

granted, and the stay of removal was lifted. Maharaj now refiles a motion requesting an

emergency stay of his removal, which has been rescheduled for July 19, 2005.

Maharaj filed a notice of appeal in this matter on July 14, 2005. The filing of a notice of

appeal completely divests this court of jurisdiction over this matter. See, e.g., Griggs v.

Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). 

In addition, as discussed in the order granting the motion to dismiss, this court has no

jurisdiction over the request or the habeas petition in light of RIDA. 6/28 Order Granting

Motion to Dismiss. Maharaj’s renewed motion, which is almost identical to the motion for stay

that was previously lifted, does not set forth any arguments articulating why this previous

decision was incorrect or otherwise move for a motion for reconsideration of the June 28

order. This matter should thus be raised before the Ninth Circuit and not here.

In addition, even if the district court retains jurisdiction over this request, Maharaj has

Case 4:05-cv-02096-PJH Document 20 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his stay request, as required to obtain the

injunctive relief requested. See, e.g., Stuhlbarg International Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush

& Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2001). Maharaj provides no legal argument

supporting his position that this court would somehow retain jurisdiction over his request for a

stay pending appeal, given that the court has already found that it has no jurisdiction over the

habeas case and that Maharaj has already filed an appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

On the record currently before this court, there is thus no likelihood of success on the

merits of Maharaj’s claims, which provides a further basis for the denial of the request. 

The motion for emergency stay is DENIED. This order fully adjudicates the matter

listed at no. 16 on the clerk’s docket for this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02096-PJH Document 20 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2