Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shaikh v. Reziqa

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

December 15, 2017

MOHAMMED JAMEEL SHAIKH, Plaintiff,
v.
HUSSAM REZIQA, ESSAM MGAHED, FAIZOOL HANIFF ALI, JR., HASSAN SABOUNGI, SAUD SULEIMAN, MAHMOUD SABOUNGI, WALI ALAFGHANI M., KHALID N. RESHEIDAT, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and JOHN DOE 3, Defendants.

          ORDER

          PAUL G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This cause comes before the Court without oral argument on the following:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Appropriate Redress for Assault on Process Server by Defendant Essam Mgahed (Doc. 20);
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and for Other Relief (Doc. 32);
3. Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41);
4. Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52);
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Enjoining Daytona Beach Police and All Law Enforcement Agencies from Enforcement of Trespass (Doc. 42);
6. Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Order (Doc. 46); and
7. Plaintiff's Rebuttal to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Order (Doc. 48).

         The parties have completed their briefing and the Court is otherwise fully advised on the premises. Upon consideration, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

         I. BACKGROUND[1]

         This pro se suit arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff, Mohammed Jameel Shaikh, and Defendants, individuals who are members of the Islamic Center of Daytona Beach (“ICDB”). The complaint details a series of disputes leading to Plaintiff's apparent expulsion from the ICDB. In a section captioned “Malicious retaliation for Evicting his family”, Plaintiff describes a dispute with Faizool Haniff Ali, Sr., regarding a property that Plaintiff rented to Ali and his family for a time, which resulted in Plaintiff evicting Ali and his family. Relatedly, Plaintiff alleges Ali stole at least $25, 000 of Plaintiff's funds from a shared account.

         Plaintiff next details his increasing involvement with the ICDB beginning in 2010. In 2013, the Executive Committee of the ICDB was considering purchasing a former YMCA building to replace the then-existing ICDB location. Plaintiff advised that the existing ICDB location should not be abandoned, and vocally opposed the purchase of the YMCA building, thereby creating tension between Plaintiff and ICDB members who supported the purchase.

         Plaintiff contends that in early 2017, Defendant, Hussam Reziqa, circulated a message to several ICDB members that Plaintiff “was about to Kill someone on the Dawa day with a Knife in His Hand.” The complaint alleges the message was designed to create a pretext to expel Plaintiff from the ICDB thereby silencing his opposition to the YMCA-building purchase, and as revenge for his eviction of Ali's family. The locks to the ICDB were later changed, preventing Plaintiff's entry. Plaintiff states he was cited for trespassing on February 7, 2017, when he attempted to enter the ICDB, prompting this suit.

         The complaint proceeds in eight counts. Count I is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim premised on malicious abuse of process relating to the February 7, 2017, trespass. Count II alleges another § 1983 claim. Count III, VI, VII, and VIII aver conspiracies in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Counts IV and V raise derivative claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 for failure to protect Plaintiff from harm stemming from the alleged § 1985(3) conspiracies.

         There are currently three pending motions in this action. First, Plaintiff seeks redress from the Court in relation to an alleged assault on a process server. (Doc. 20). Second, Defendants have collectively moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 32). Third, Plaintiff seeks an injunction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.