Ibrahim v. Mullin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOUL IBRAHIM,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-1846-G
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Joul Ibrahim seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Doc. 1.1 United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred this
matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 4. Petitioner filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order. Doc. 15. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned
recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s motion.
I. 	Temporary Restraining Order requirements.
A court may only grant a motion for a temporary restraining order made
without notice if the movant’s attorney has, in relevant part, “certifie[d] in
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-01846-G Document 16 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
writing any efforts made to give notice [to the non-movant] and the reasons
why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B).
Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with this requirement. In his
motion, Petitioner seeks to prevent Respondents from transferring him to
another detention facility because doing so would inhibit his ability to “present
his case in court” and would cause “extensive financial burden.” Doc. 15, at 1-
2. However, Petitioner does not explain, and does not submit any evidence of,
his attorney’s efforts to give Respondents notice or why notice should not be
required. So, Petitioner has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B).
Therefore, the Court should deny the motion. See, e.g., Bahadorani v.
Bondi, et al., No. CIV-25-1091-PRW, Doc. 11 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 24, 2025)
(denying temporary restraining order when the petitioner disregarded Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)); Honeycutt v. Mitchell, No. CIV-08-140-W, 2008 WL 4694226,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2008) (recognizing that a temporary restraining
order is “an extraordinary remedy, appropriate only when the procedural
safeguards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) are scrupulously honored”).
II. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
deny Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Doc. 15. The
undersigned advises Petitioner of his right to file an objection to this Report
and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court on or before October 23,
Case 5:26-cv-01846-G Document 16 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Petitioner that failure to
make a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right
to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore
v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation does not terminate the referral to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-01846-G Document 16 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 3