Niang v. Voorhies et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Amadou Tidjane Niang,
Petitioner,
-vs-
Voorhies, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 4:25-cv-2224-PAB
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
On December 2, 2025, this Court held a hearing on Petitioner Amadou Tidjane Niang’s
(“Petitioner” or “Niang”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on November 19, 2025 (Doc. No.
14) (Petitioner’s Motion”) and Respondents’s Return of Writ/Motion to Dismiss the Petition filed on
November 14, 2025 (“Respondents’ Motion”) (Doc. No. 10.).
Respondents contend that thisCourt lacks jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction and
lacks jurisdiction to grant the Petition, and further argue that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. (See generally Doc. Nos. 10, 20.) After evaluating the parties’ briefs and
the statutory and case law cite and discussed therein, and upon considering the parties’ further
arguments adduced at the hearing, the Court finds the Respondents’ arguments to be well-taken. The
Court agrees with Respondents that it lacks jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction and lacks
jurisdiction to grant the Petition, and therefore, the Court need not address the parties’ arguments
regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Accordingly, 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	Respondents’ 	Motion 	(Doc. 	No. 	10) 	and
Respondents’ Opposition (Doc. No. 20) and more fully explained on the record at the hearing, the
Court hereby ORDERS as follows: Respondents’ Motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED; Petitioner’s
Case: 4:25-cv-02224-PAB Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/03/25 1 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Motion (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED; and the Petition (Doc. No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Without a certificate of appealability, a habeas petitioner cannot appeal a final order in a
habeas proceeding. 	28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 	Issuance of a certificate of appealability requires a
petitioner to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 	28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). This means that the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could find the district
court’s determination of the relevant constitutional claims debatable or incorrect. Tennard v. Dretke,
542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004). The petitioner need not show that the appeal would succeed to be eligible
for a certificate of appealability. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003).
Because of an absence of controlling precedent in this Circuit on the proper procedure on the
facts and circumstances presented, the Court acknowledges that reasonable jurists may disagree with
the Court’s conclusion regarding jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS a Certificate of
Appealability on the Petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Pamela A. Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
Date: December 3, 2025 	U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-02224-PAB Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/03/25 2 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>