Legal Opinion

Muhammad v. Paruk

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided May 12, 2008No. Civil 07-11342PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN FEIKENS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Ginnah Muhammad filed this action against Defendant Paul J. Paruk, in his official capacity as Judge of the 31st District Court for the City of Hamtramck, alleging violations of her First Amendment right to free exercise of her religion and her civil right to access to the court system. Paruk has brought a motion to dismiss Muhammad’s claims, arguing that dismissal is appropriate based on the Rooker-Feldmcm Doctrine, the Younger Abstention Doctrine, judicial immunity, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and Muhammad’s failure to state a claim…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. (2009), Maryland Attorney General Reports2009
  2. Buckley v. All Occupants ofDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2025
  3. Hannah Bleavins, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Earl Harris v. O'NealDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2022
  4. Queen v. FarhatDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API