Swami v. District Attorney

Filing 6

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/4/2014 ORDERING 3 Plaintiff's Motion to return of seized property and to suppress evidence is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Saran Swami,

12

No. 2:14-cv-00844-TLN-EFB
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

District Attorney,

15

ORDER

Defendant

16
17
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for an Order to Return of the [sic] Seized
18
Property and to Suppress the Evidence; and For Other Relief. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff is a pro se
19

litigant who has filed this action against “District Attorney.” (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff

20
requests the return of property including a computer and legal documents allegedly taken from his
21
22
23

house on April 1, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that without these documents he cannot be “represented
effectively.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Plaintiff requests that “the search warrant should be set aside, all
the evidence should be suppressed and seized property should be returned.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.)

24
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule
25
231(c) with respect to temporary restraining orders, evidenced by his failure to complete the
26
27

Court’s TRO checklist. (See ECF No. 4 at 4.)
Similarly, Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of detail. Plaintiff’s generic references to “search

28
1

1

warrant” and the “district attorney” indicate that Plaintiff is the subject of an investigation in a

2

state court proceeding. If that is the case, there are state court avenues and processes to address

3

Plaintiff’s requests for relief. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5 (discussing motion to return

4

property or to suppress evidence). Such motions must be made in the state court where the action

5

is pending, not in the Eastern District of California, a federal court.

6

Construing Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, this Court assumes that Plaintiff is alleging an

7

illegal search and seizure or a deprivation of a property interest without due process in violation

8

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, these causes of action would not accrue until the accused is able

9

to prove a termination of the proceedings in his favor. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

10

486–87 (1994). Here, Plaintiff provides no facts indicating that the proceeding has terminated in

11

his favor; to the contrary, it appears that the underlying proceeding is still ongoing as the alleged

12

deprivation took place only a few days ago.

13

Finally, Plaintiff does not satisfy the stringent standard to grant ex parte injunctive relief.

14

To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the moving party must demonstrate (1) a probability

15

of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that the lawsuit raises

16

serious questions and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the movant's favor. See Hoopa

17

Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1986); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Am.

18

Broad. Cos., Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Plaintiff does

19

not address let alone satisfy the requirements of probability of success on the merits.

20

Furthermore, for the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this lawsuit raises

21

serious questions of public interest with the balance of hardships tipping in his favor. Therefore,

22

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: April 4, 2014

25
26
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

27
28
2