Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03709/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03709-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN SZE KIT MA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03709-PJH 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order came on for hearing before 

this court on August 17, 2015. Plaintiff Stephen Sze Kit Ma appeared by his counsel 

Anthony J. Palik, and defendants Jeh Johnson, Sarah Saldaña, Thomas D. Holman, 

Timothy S. Aitken, and John Martinez appeared by their counsel Assistant United States 

Attorney Robin Wall. Having read the papers submitted by plaintiff and carefully 

considered the arguments presented at the hearing and the relevant legal authority, the 

court hereby DENIES the application as follows for the reasons stated at the hearing.

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general 

standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle 

Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. 

John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). An injunction is a 

matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 

upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); see also Munaf v. Geren, 553 

U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008). 

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

Case 4:15-cv-03709-PJH Document 11 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 

the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Alternatively, the plaintiff may demonstrate 

that the likelihood of success is such that “serious questions going to the merits were 

raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor,” so long as 

the other two elements of the Winter test are met. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 

632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Here, plaintiff seeks an order enjoining defendants “from taking any further action 

to remove plaintiff” from the United States. Plaintiff concedes removability, but argues 

that the manner in which defendants plan on executing the order of removal violates his 

rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that plaintiff’s objection was 

based on his belief that defendants plan on putting him on a commercial flight to China 

unaccompanied and without medical monitoring, rather than accompanying him to China

on a charter flight and delivering him to Chinese authorities directly; and on his belief that 

defendants had failed to obtain a “travel certificate” from Chinese authorities pursuant to 

which he would be admitted into China.

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success as to either of these claims, or a 

likelihood of irreparable harm, as he admits that neither of these procedures is required 

by law. Moreover, Mr. Wall represented on behalf of the defendants that it is the practice, 

when an alien who is an aggravated felon is being returned to his country under an order 

of removal, for agents of the United States to accompany him to his destination and to 

deliver him to the foreign customs officials. As for the issue of the government’s alleged 

inability to obtain a “travel certificate,” the evidence shows that plaintiff currently has a 

valid Chinese passport, which is the only “travel certificate” required, and that the 

passport had not yet been issued when the government previously requested a travel 

certificate from Chinese authorities. In addition, the fact that a commercial rather than a 

charter flight is contemplated is of no significance given that commercial flights are 

routinely used when the person being removed is not considered dangerous. 

Case 4:15-cv-03709-PJH Document 11 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

The parties shall meet and confer regarding whether plaintiff will file a motion for 

preliminary injunction and a briefing schedule for said motion. This matter will otherwise 

proceed in accordance with the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order to be issued 

forthwith by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-03709-PJH Document 11 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3