Amhirra v. Fitting

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT TACOMA 10 11 HASSAN AMHIRRA, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05800-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 13 TAMMY FITTING, in her official capacity ORDER 14 as Immigration Judge, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Hassan Amhirra’s Motion for Temporary 18 Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Order Re: Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 4. Because the Court 19 lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court DISMISSES the case and 20 DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 A. The Instant Matter (No. C25-5800) 23 This case arises from the federal government’s ongoing efforts to remove Plaintiff, 24 “a citizen of Morocco who fled to the United States seeking protection.” Dkt. No. 1 (complaint) 1 ¶ 3. In two causes of action, Plaintiff pleads violations of his due process rights under the Fifth 2 Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 71–117. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief—namely, a 3 “declaration that Defendants’ continued prosecution of removal proceedings against [Plaintiff] 4 without providing a qualified interpreter in the Tamazight language (Aulouz dialect) violates the 5 Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and is unlawful”; and “[a]n order preliminarily and 6 permanently enjoining Defendants (including their officers, agents, and subordinates) from 7 continuing to adjudicate or prosecute [Plaintiff’s] removal proceedings unless and until a 8 competent interpreter in [Plaintiff’s] primary language (Tamazight, Aulouz dialect) is made 9 available.” Id. at 17. 10 “[S]ince approximately September 15, 2024,” Plaintiff has been detained by Immigration 11 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, 12 Washington. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4. Plaintiff avers that his “primary (and only fluent) language is 13 Tamazight—specifically, the Aulouz dialect of the Tamazight (Berber) language spoken in 14 Morocco.” Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff “has extremely limited proficiency” in any other language and, 15 consequently, “cannot meaningfully communicate or understand proceedings conducted in 16 English (or other common languages) . . . .” Id. ¶¶ 5–6. 17 After Plaintiff arrived in the United States in 2024, the Department of Homeland Security 18 (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings against him. Id. ¶ 20. Because Plaintiff “could not 19 communicate in English or any language for which an interpreter was readily available” (id. 20 ¶ 21), “[n]o substantive progress in the case could be made” (id.). “On December 13, 2024, after 21 months of unsuccessful efforts to find a suitable interpreter,” an Immigration Judge terminated 22 the removal proceedings without prejudice. Id. ¶ 25. Although the removal proceedings had been 23 terminated, Plaintiff remained in ICE custody. Id. ¶ 32. 24 1 On July 17, 2025, “[a]fter an extended period of inaction,” DHS reinitiated removal 2 proceedings against Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 36. “DHS issued a new Notice to Appear (‘NTA’)—the 3 charging document that begins removal proceedings—and filed it with the Immigration Court, 4 thereby commencing a new removal case against [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 37. On July 18, 2025, Plaintiff 5 filed a motion to terminate, “arguing that proceeding with the new case would be improper and 6 unconstitutional for the same reasons that the prior case had been terminated.” Id. ¶ 42. 7 Since reinitiating removal proceedings, the government has brought Plaintiff to 8 Immigration Court three times, on each occasion without the attendance of a competent 9 Tamazight (Aulouz Dialect) interpreter. At a master calendar hearing on July 31, 2025, the 10 Immigration Judge “was unable to communicate with [Plaintiff] to either explain the 11 proceedings, take pleadings, or conduct any substantive business.” Id. ¶¶ 45–47. “The hearing 12 ended in a continuance.” Id. ¶ 48. On August 18, 2025, the Immigration Court “could not 13 communicate with [Plaintiff] in any effective manner, and the hearing had to be continued 14 without substantive progress.” Id. ¶ 52. And on September 2, 2025, “the Immigration Judge 15 could not communicate with [Plaintiff], take pleadings, or conduct any substantive 16 business . . . .” Id. ¶ 58. At this hearing, Plaintiff renewed his motion to terminate. Id. ¶ 59. The 17 Immigration Judge denied the motion. Id. ¶ 60. Plaintiff avers that, as of September 8, 2025 (the 18 date of his pleading), “the reinitiated removal proceedings remain at a standstill,” and that 19 “[t]here is still no way for the Immigration Court to communicate with [Plaintiff], and thus no 20 way to move forward toward a resolution of his case.” Id. ¶¶ 64–65. 21 B. Plaintiff’s Habeas Petition (No. C25-1376) 22 Plaintiff is also seeking a writ of habeas corpus in a separate case in this Court, Amhirra 23 v. Warden, No. C25-1376. Unlike the instant case, which targets the removal proceeding against 24 1 Plaintiff, the habeas action challenges the ongoing detention of Plaintiff.1 See generally Petition, 2 Amhirra v. Warden (July 22, 2025), Dkt. No. 1. There are two motions pending before the Court 3 in Plaintiff’s habeas action: a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff, which is noted 4 for consideration on September 17, 2025; and a motion to dismiss filed by the United States, 5 which is noted for consideration on September 24, 2025. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Under Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), “no court shall have 8 jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or 9 action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal 10 orders against any alien . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). The statute is read “narrow[ly]” and “applies 11 only to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to 12 ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’” Ibarra-Perez v. United 13 States, No. 24-631, 2025 WL 2461663, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (quoting Reno v. 14 American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 487, 482 (1999)). 15 Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that this case falls squarely within the purview of 16 Subsection 1252(g). The complaint stems from DHS’s “abruptly s[eeking] to reinitiate removal 17 proceedings against [Plaintiff] in the summer of 2025.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 36. “On or about July 17, 18 2025, DHS issued a new Notice to Appear (‘NTA’)—the charging document that begins removal 19 proceedings—and filed it with the Immigration Court, thereby commencing a new removal case 20 against [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 37 (emphasis added). Given the language of the statute and the Supreme 21 22 1 The Respondent in Plaintiff’s habeas corpus petition is “Warden, Northwest Detention Center.” See Petition at 1, Amhirra v. Warden (July 22, 2025). “The Northwest ICE Processing Centers’ Facility Administrator is employed by 23 a private contractor, the Geo Group,” and Plaintiff’s “Petition does not name a federal entity.” Motion to Dismiss at 1 n.1, Amhirra v. Warden (Aug. 27, 2025), Dkt. No. 16. The United States’ participation in Plaintiff’s Petition is 24 as an “interested non-party.” Id. 1 || Court and Ninth Circuit’s clear interpretation of that language, the Court cannot read the law so 2 narrowly as to exclude this case from the statute’s jurisdictional restriction. Simply put, this is a 3 || claim that arises from a decision or action to commence removal proceedings, and the INA bars 4 || the Court from hearing it. 5 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED AS 6 || MOOT. 7 8 Dated this 9th day of September, 2025. 9 □ | AA PC ‘ 10 ana Lin 4 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24