Benjamin J. Cheeks

“Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the full $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)”

“Defendants, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Plaintiff from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 3.] Plaintiff shall have until March 18, 2025, to pay the entire filing fee or file a renewed application to proceed IFP.”

“Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [ECF No. 7.] For the reasons stated below, his motion is GRANTED. ... Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 7.]”

“Here, Plaintiff represents that he has equipment and software sufficient to meet the required technical specifications, is familiar with the District’s policies and procedures, and will comply with all relevant privacy policies. (Mot.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. [ECF No. 2.]”

“Based on Plaintiff’s income, expenses, and bank account, it appears that he does not have funds to pay the filing fee and still ‘afford the necessities of life.’ Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 3.]”

“Accordingly, the Court stays the current action and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default. Defendant is directed to file a status report on the progress of his bankruptcy petition no later than July 25, 2025.”

“Consequently, because Bissell has put forth undisputed evidence that the Vacuum’s warranty began on the date of delivery and not purchase, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated he suffered an injury in fact and therefore GRANTS Bissell’s motion to dismiss.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has met its burden of establishing the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, Defendant has established federal jurisdiction under CAFA, and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED.”

“Good cause appearing, the Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as follows: 1. The September 15, 2025 Early Neutral Evaluation Conference is hereby CONTINUED to October 6, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.”

“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s temporary restraining order is GRANTED; 2. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is hereby ORDERED to immediately release the Petitioner from the Otay Mesa Detention Center;”

“ORDER on Joint Motion to Dismiss 15. Signed by District Judge Benjamin J. Cheeks on 8/18/25.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay; and (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.”

“As noted above, the statute of limitations period has run on Plaintiff’s FTCA claims, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because the government is immune from suit over FTCA cases concerning contact interference. Therefore, the outcome of the state court case will not have an effect on the present action, and the motion for stay is denied as moot.”