Alston v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/28/2012 ORDERING 1 Motion for TRO and a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; the 12/3/2012 hearing is VACATED. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

C.D. Alston,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

City of Sacramento; Sacramento
City Police Department,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On

November

26,

2012,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-02865-GEB-AC (PS)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff,

proceeding

in

propria

persona, filed an unnoticed ex parte motion for a temporary restraining
order

and

a

preliminary

injunction

(“the

motion”).

Specifically,

Plaintiff requests that
this Court . . . enter a Temporary Restraining
Order . . . and after a hearing, a Preliminary
Injunction,
restraining
and
enjoining
the
Defendants, their officials, officers, agents,
employees, contractors, and any other persons
acting for them, with them, through or on their
behalf, who have received actual notice of that
Order, from violating Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights.
(Pl.’s Mot. for Temp. Restraining Order and Prelim. Inj. (“Pl.’s Mot.”),
at 2:1–5.) Plaintiff argues Defendants have intruded on “Plaintiff’s
rights . . . guaranteed by the constitution, specifically the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments”; and she asks the federal court to “intervene[]
and exercise jurisdiction over [a] criminal case and . . . preserve
Plaintiff’s liberty until there is a finding from the court”; and she
seeks injunctive relief “against physical assault, harassment, bullying,
1

1

infringements of civil rights”; and “arresting Plaintiff and depriving

2

her of her liberty.” (Id. at 4:2–4, 21:5-12.) Plaintiff states that

3

“[t]he grounds for this motion are set forth in the complaint and

4

Memorandum of Law which are being filed together with this Motion and

5

are

6

However, no complaint was filed with the motion.

7

expressly

incorporated

Nothing

in

by

reference

Plaintiff’s

herein.”

motion

shows

(Id.

she

at

has

2:6–7.)

provided

8

Defendants with notice of her request for a preliminary injunction as

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65(a) requires. This rule

10

prescribes: “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction only on

11

notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Therefore,

12

Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is denied.

13

Further, Rule 65(b) also requires Plaintiff to show sufficient

14

justification for issuance of an unnoticed temporary restraining order.

15

“The

16

availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact

17

that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action

18

taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been

19

granted both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of

20

Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S.

21

423 (1974).

22

stringent

restrictions

imposed

by

.

.

.

Rule

65[]

on

the

Rule 65(b)(1), which applies to the ex parte and unnoticed

23

temporary restraining order Plaintiff seeks, states, in relevant part:

24

[t]he court may issue a temporary restraining order
without written or oral notice to the adverse party
. . . only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit
or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result
to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition; and (B) the movant[] . . . certifies
in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
reasons why it should not be required.

25
26
27
28

2

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

2

it does not contain “specific facts” “clearly show[ing] that immediate

3

and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to [her] before

4

[Defendants] can be heard in opposition” to her motion for a temporary

5

restraining order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

Plaintiff has filed a declaration; however,

6

But in light of the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations against

7

Defendants, providing notice would not remedy her motion’s flaws.

8

Plaintiff’s

9

injunctive relief. As prescribed in Local Rule 231(b):

10

allegations

evince

she

has

unduly

delayed

in

seeking

15

In considering a motion for a temporary restraining
order, the Court will consider whether the
applicant could have sought relief by motion for
preliminary injunction at an earlier date without
the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by
motion for temporary restraining order. Should the
Court find that the applicant unduly delayed in
seeking injunctive relief, the Court may conclude
that the delay constitutes laches or contradicts
the applicant’s allegations of irreparable injury
and may deny the motion solely on either ground.

16

E.D. Cal. L. R. 231(b). In an exhibit attached to her motion, Plaintiff

17

describes the most recent incident involving Defendants as follows.

11
12
13
14

18

22

[A]t Hagginwood Park on May 12, 2012, . . . as soon
as [Sacramento City Police] Officer[s] . . .
entered the park, they approached Plaintiff and her
friend. Plaintiff was placed in the back of [a]
patrol vehicle and her friend was placed in
handcuffs . . . in another patrol vehicle. They
were detained for about an hour for identification
purposes and “curiosity.” Plaintiff and her friend
[were] not involved in any criminal activities.

23

(Pl.’s Mot., Ex. 1, ECF No. 3.) Since Plaintiff states this incident

24

occurred over six months ago, Plaintiff has not shown that she is likely

25

to endure “irreparable injury” absent a temporary restraining order, nor

26

why she waited until the week of November 26, 2012 to seek an injunction

27

against Defendants.

28

unduly delayed in seeking injunctive relief.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 231(b).

19
20
21

Therefore, it is “conclude[d] that [Plaintiff]

3

1

Nor has Plaintiff provided sufficient justification for her

2

request that the federal court intervene in a state criminal proceeding

3

against her. “[T]he need for a proper balance between state and federal

4

authority counsels restraint in the issuance of injunctions against

5

state officers engaged in the administration of the states’ criminal

6

laws in the absence of irreparable injury which is both great and

7

immediate.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 112 (1983).

8
9

“At a minimum, a plaintiff seeking . . . injunctive relief
must demonstrate

that

[she] will

be exposed

to

irreparable

harm.

10

Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to

11

warrant granting a[n] . . . injunction.” Caribbean Marine Svcs. Co.,

12

Inc.

13

Plaintiff[]

14

irreparable harm in the absence of [injunctive] relief, . . . the

15

remaining elements of the . . . injunction standard” need not be

16

addressed. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th

17

Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

v.

18

Baldrige,
ha[s]

844

F.2d

failed

to

Therefore,

668,

674

Plaintiff’s

Cir.

that

show

(9th
[she

is]

motion

for

1988).
likely

either

19

restraining

20

Dated:

to

a

suffer

temporary

December 3, 2012 hearing date for the motion is vacated.

21

“Because

order

or

a

preliminary

injunction

is

denied,

and the

November 28, 2012

22
23
24

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
4