govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02967-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
MasAti Sajady, formerly known as 
Masood Sajady,  
 
  Plaintiff, 
 
v.  
 
Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as 
United States Secretary of State; and 
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in his official 
capacity as United States Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, 
 
  Defendants. 
 
 
                Civ. No. 26-2967 (JWB/JFD) 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION  
FOR TEMPORARY  
RESTRAINING ORDER 
 
Plaintiff alleges that federal officials confiscated his passport at Minneapolis-Saint 
Paul International Airport shortly before an international flight. He contends that the 
action was unlawful and seeks emergency relief requiring federal officials to return the 
passport, remove his name from passport denial and revocation lists, withdraw any 
certification supporting the passport action, and provide information concerning the basis 
for the action. 
The motion is denied. 
DISCUSSION 
I. Legal Standard 
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy. Life Time Fitness, Inc. 
v. DeCelles, 854 F. Supp. 2d 690, 694 (D. Minn. 2012); Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 
841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). A party seeking such relief must establish a likelihood of 
CASE 0:26-cv-02967-JWB-JFD     Doc. 4     Filed 06/18/26     Page 1 of 3
 2 
success on the merits and irreparable harm absent immediate intervention. Winter v. Nat. 
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20–22 (2008); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 
640 F.2d 109, 807, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (stating the balance of harm between the parties 
and the public interest are also considered).  
Plaintiff has not made either showing. 
 
II. Analysis  
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 
The present record does not establish a likelihood of success on the merits. 
Plaintiff alleges that his passport was confiscated and suggests that the action arose from 
an ongoing child support dispute. Beyond that, the record reveals little about the 
governmental action being challenged. The filings do not establish exactly what 
determination produced the passport action, who made that determination, what 
information was before the decisionmaker, or what authority either Defendant had 
concerning that determination. 
Perhaps Plaintiff will ultimately establish that the passport action was improper. 
But the current record is too undeveloped to support that conclusion. At this stage, 
Plaintiff's allegations raise fundamental unanswered questions. And unanswered 
questions do not establish a likelihood of success on the merits. 
B. Irreparable Harm 
Plaintiff has likewise failed to establish irreparable harm warranting emergency 
relief. Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate legal remedy, typically 
because its injuries cannot be fully compensated through damages. See Gen. Motors 
CASE 0:26-cv-02967-JWB-JFD     Doc. 4     Filed 06/18/26     Page 2 of 3
 3 
Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009). The moving party must 
show that irreparable harm is likely, not merely possible. Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 
F.4th 657, 665 (8th Cir. 2022) (quotations omitted). 
Plaintiff alleges that he missed an international business trip and lost related 
business opportunities. Those alleged injuries are significant, but they have already 
occurred. The motion identifies no imminent travel, no impending deadline, and no other 
concrete event requiring immediate intervention before Defendants can be heard. Nor has 
Plaintiff shown why ordinary litigation procedures are inadequate to address the alleged 
harm.  
The absence of prior notice is what is compelling from Plaintiff's allegations. If 
events occurred as Plaintiff describes them, his frustration is understandable. But the 
question presented here is a narrower one. The issue is not whether Plaintiff may 
ultimately prevail. Instead, it is whether Plaintiff has established an entitlement to 
immediate emergency relief on the present record. He has not. 
Because Plaintiff has failed to establish either a likelihood of success on the merits 
or irreparable harm, the motion fails. 
ORDER 
 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency 
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order without Notice (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. 
 
  Date: June 18, 2026 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell   
 JERRY W. BLACKWELL 
 United States District Judge 
CASE 0:26-cv-02967-JWB-JFD     Doc. 4     Filed 06/18/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight