Maxey v. United States, et al.

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/14/14 DENYING 1 Motion for TRO. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JAMES C. MAXEY,

11
12
13

No.

14-cv-00900 JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
BARACK OBAMA,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

14
Defendants.
15
16

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff James Maxey’s

17

(“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

18

(“TRO”) (Doc. #1).

19

TRO “compelling Respondents to immediately suspend the

20

government’s (24 hours a day) unwarranted surveilance [sic] of

21

him by way of a ‘satellite instrument’ criminally implanted into

22

his body (without his knowledge) in order to monitor every

23

movement made inside and outside of the home.”

Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who requests a

Compl. ¶ 3.

24

To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the moving

25

party must demonstrate (1) a probability of success on the merits

26

and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that the lawsuit

27

raises serious questions and the balance of hardship tips sharply

28

in the movant’s favor.

See Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812
1

1

F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1986); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v.

2

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515 (9th

3

Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

4

pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

5

519, 520–21 (1972), they are not immune from the Federal Rules of

6

Civil Procedure.

7

Cir. 1995).

8
9

Although pro se

See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th

This case is the latest in a series of cases filed by
Plaintiff, most of which have been dismissed with prejudice.

10

Nevertheless, Plaintiff filed this complaint and it appears that

11

everything the Court has done or will do, it will have to do over

12

and over and over again.

13

for a TRO, Plaintiff’s convoluted enumeration of claims does not

14

meet the requisite burden.

15

describing a circle of violence and degradation.

16

Plaintiff has failed to articulate the parties and the behavior

17

that he seeks to enjoin.

18

probability of success on the merits, a possibility of

19

irreparable harm, or that this lawsuit raises serious questions

20

of public interest with the balance of hardship tipping in his

21

favor.

22
23

As with Plaintiff’s previous request

He alleges a litany of offenses
However,

Further, he has failed to show a

Accordingly, for all these reasons, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

April 14, 2014

26
27
28
2