Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00545/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00545-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAHINAH IBRAHIM, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his official capacity as

the Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security, TOM RIDGE, in his official capacity as the

former Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION, KIP HAWLEY, in his official

capacity as Administrator of the Transportation

Security Administration, DAVID M. STONE, in his

official capacity as Acting Administrator of the

Transportation Security Administration, TERRORIST

SCREENING CENTER, DONNA A. BUCELLA, in

er official capacity as Director of the Terrorist

Screening Center, NORM MINETA, in his official

capacity as Secretary of Transportation, FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, MARION C.

BLAKEY, in her official capacity as Administrator of

the Federal Aviation Administration, FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT

MUELLER, in his official capacity as Director of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, SAN FRANCISCO

AIRPORT, CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY

OF SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, UAL CORPORATION, UNITED

AIRLINES; DAVID NEVINS, an individual,

RICHARD PATE, an individual, JOHN

BONDANELLA, an individual, JOHN

CUNNINGHAM, an individual, ELIZABETH

MARON, an individual, and DOES 1 THROUGH

100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-00545 WHA

ORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS ORIGINAL

COMPLAINT

Case 3:06-cv-00545-WHA Document 90 Filed 07/20/06 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

This order finds that the proposed amendment to plaintiff’s original complaint renders it

procedurally awkward for the Court to rule at this time on defendants’ motions to dismiss aimed

at that original complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint may substantially alter the

jurisdictional landscape in this case. All of the currently pending motions to dismiss the

original complaint are deemed denied, without prejudice to defendants to renew any and all of

these arguments with respect to the amended complaint. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file her

amended complain is granted. Plaintiff had the benefit of defendants’ moving papers in framing

her amended complaint. It will, therefore, be more efficient to consider all of the issues at one

time in light of the amended complaint.

The following schedule governs the renewed motions to dismiss the amended complaint:

1. Each set of moving defendants (i.e., the federal defendants, the United

defendants, and defendant Bondanella) shall file and serve a supplemental brief

of no more than 10 pages by no later than July 27, 2006 at noon, addressing the

purported grounds for dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint.

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve one supplemental brief of no more than 15 pages by

no later than August 3, 2006 at noon, responding to defendants’ arguments.

3. Unless the Court so orders, the matter will be deemed under submission

following receipt of plaintiff’s responsive brief. No further oral argument will be

heard unless otherwise noticed. The Court will consider both the previous

briefing on the initial motions to dismiss as well as the supplemental briefs in

ruling on the motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00545-WHA Document 90 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2