Qureshi v. US
| Citation | 600 F.3d 523 |
| Decision Date | 15 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-20317.,09-20317. |
| Parties | Nasir QURESHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
600 F.3d 523
Nasir QURESHI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-20317.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 15, 2010.
Shane Allister McClelland, Herbert & McClelland, Houston, TX, for Qureshi.
John Francis Paniszczyn, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, TX, for U.S.
Before DeMOSS, ELROD and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
HAYNES, Circuit Judge:
Nashir Qureshi appeals from a sua sponte order of the district court requiring him to obtain the court's permission before filing suit in any federal court in the state of Texas. Because the district court entered this injunction without affording Qureshi prior notice or the opportunity to oppose the order, we VACATE the injunction and REMAND for further proceedings.
I. Facts & Procedural History
The history of this case is short. On March 3, 2009, Qureshi filed a complaint against the United States seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act based on his allegedly unlawful detention by the Department of Homeland Security. Qureshi never served the United States with the summons and complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1). The district court set an initial conference for June 1, 2009, but, on April 28, 2009, reset the conference date for May 1, 2009, and specifically directed that Qureshi appear personally. On April 30, 2009, Qureshi voluntarily dismissed his case with prejudice as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Later the same day, the district court entered an order of dismissal and, sua sponte, a permanent injunction against Qureshi. In its entirety, the injunction reads:
Since 2005, Nasir Qureshi has filed four lawsuits in the Southern District of Texas that have been dismissed without prejudice. Because of this persistent abuse of the judicial process, Qureshi may not file papers in Texas federal courts without written permission of Judge Lynn N. Hughes. He may answer a lawsuit filed against him; however, he may not counter-claim without permission.
Qureshi timely appealed the injunction, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the injunction or, in the alternative, that the district court abused its discretion in doing so. The United States defends the validity of the injunction on appeal.
II. Standard of Review
"We review the district court's grant of an injunction for an abuse of discretion, and underlying questions of law de novo." Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir.2002). We review claimed defects of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 186 (5th Cir. 2008).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Qureshi asserts five grounds for reversal of the district court's injunction: (1) that the district court lost jurisdiction when Qureshi filed the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal; (2) that the injunction was entered without notice and opportunity to be heard; (3) that the terms of the injunction do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d); (4) that compliance with the order is impossible; and (5) that the order is unnecessary. We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the order notwithstanding Qureshi's voluntary dismissal, but that the lack of notice and an opportunity
A. Jurisdiction
Qureshi argues that the district court was without power to take any action on his case once he filed the notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Under that provision, a "plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). As the notice of dismissal was filed before the United States had served its answer or motion for summary judgment, Qureshi's notice was undisputedly effective to dismiss the action. We have conclusively explained that this document is immediately self-effectuating:
Rule 41(a)(1) is the shortest and surest route to abort a complaint when it is applicable. So long as plaintiff has not been served with his adversary's answer or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Integranet Physician Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C.
...Baum for the standard for reviewing an injunction, which the per curiam panel characterized as a sanction).6 Qureshi v. United States , 600 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 2010).7 Id.8 See McCoy v. La. State Bd. of Ed. , 345 F.2d 720, 720 (5th Cir. 1965) (internal quotation marks omitted).9 Id. See......
-
Doe v. United States
...; In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir.1981).14 Lewis v. Hunt, 492 F.3d 565, 570 (5th Cir. 2007).15 See generally Qureshi v. United States, 600 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 2010) ("That the court loses jurisdiction over the litigation does not, however, deprive the district court of its inherent ......
-
Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church
...to take any action after the filing of the first notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), see Qureshi v. United States, 600 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir.2010), such a filing also cannot be a “final order.” Thus with respect to whether we are presented with a “final judgment” or “f......
-
Zimmerman v. City of Austin
...action. Even if a court loses jurisdiction over the litigation, it maintains its "inherent supervisory powers." Qureshi v. United States , 600 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus, " ‘a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending,’ including ‘the imposit......