Herships v. State of California, et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/17/2014 ORDERING 3 Motion for TRO is DENIED. (Waggoner, D)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOWARD HERSHIPS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-00089-KJM-CKD v. ORDER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EDMUND G. BROWN, in his official capacity as Governor, 16 Defendants. 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s ex-parte motion for a temporary 18 19 restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF 3.) Plaintiff challenges on Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment 20 grounds three California statutes relating to the admissibility and use of computer-generated red- 21 light camera photographs, video, and data. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (1) an 22 injunction to stop his pending criminal trial for running a red light, scheduled to begin on January 23 30, 2014; (2) a ruling that California Vehicle Code section 21455.5(e) and California Evidence 24 Code sections 1552 and 1553 are unconstitutional; (3) an order to stay all red light criminal trials 25 in the State, including plaintiff’s, until this court decides upon the constitutionality of these three 26 state statutes; (4) an order to stay all red light criminal trials in the State, including plaintiff’s, 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 until the California Supreme Court rules on a red light case currently under review, titled People 2 v. Goldberg, 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (2012); and (5) fees and costs. (Id. at 10–11.) For the 3 following reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion without a hearing. 4 A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing “that immediate and 5 irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 6 in opposition.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of such an order is to preserve the 7 status quo and to prevent irreparable harm “just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 8 longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 9 In determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order, a court applies the 10 factors that guide the evaluation of a request for preliminary injunctive relief: whether the moving 11 party “is likely to succeed on the merits, . . . likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 12 preliminary relief, . . . the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and . . . an injunction is in the 13 public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see Stuhlbarg 14 Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the 15 analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is “substantially identical”). 16 The court denies plaintiff’s motion for two reasons. First, plaintiff has not filed all 17 the documents required by Local Rule 231(c). Specifically, plaintiff did not file a proposed 18 temporary restraining order with a provision for a bond and notice to defendants that they may 19 apply for a modification of the ex-parte TRO. Plaintiff has in the alternative not alleged the 20 impossibility of filing this document. 21 Second, and more importantly, even if plaintiff had fully complied with the Local 22 Rules, the court would still deny his motion because this court may not enjoin proceedings in a 23 state court unless “expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its 24 jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283; accord Younger v. 25 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (a federal court granting declaratory and injunctive relief that 26 interferes with pending state court proceedings violates national policy except under special 27 circumstances). Plaintiff does not argue that an exception to this general rule exists here, nor can 28 the court identify any such special circumstances. 2 1 Because the court may not enjoin plaintiff’s state criminal trial, plaintiff will suffer 2 no irreparable harm if the court does not consider his constitutional challenge before the start of 3 his state criminal trial. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (plaintiff must demonstrate irreparable injury 4 is likely in the absence of an injunction). Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO is therefore DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 17, 2014. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?