Haskell v. Garret, et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3). Signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/7/2015. (Deutsch, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RUTH HASKELL,

10
11
12
13

No. 2:15-cv-0750-TLN-CMK PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JEFF GARRETT, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff Ruth Haskell filed a complaint in this matter entitled

16

“Complaint and Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief”. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges

17

that on September 24, 2014, some twenty-five officers and agents entered her property

18

with a search warrant and rummaged through her belongings. Plaintiff and a guest at

19

the property, Roongroj Spiritula, were arrested. Plaintiff claims she was injured by

20

Tehama County Deputy Sherriff Jeff Garrett in the process of her arrest. Thereafter, on

21

or about November 4, 2014, Plaintiff claims that a Tehama County Code Enforcement

22

Officer, Keith Curl, posted a Notice to Abate on her property. On April 2, 2014, Curl

23

made a subsequent inspection and told Plaintiff that certain of her belongings would be

24

confiscated beginning on the morning of April 8, 2015.

25

While the body of Plaintiff’s complaint contains no further reference to the nature

26

of any injunctive relief being sought aside from a concluding prayer that injunctive relief

27

against Defendants be granted, on April 7, 2015 Plaintiff filed an additional document

28

captioned as an “Application for Preliminary Injunction Relief.” ECF No. 3.
1

1

That Application states that Plaintiffs’ ”property, papers and [e]ffects” will be taken and

2

destroyed on April 8, 2015 by agents and officers of Tehama County, and that Plaintiff

3

will suffer irreparable harm causing “great financial loss” if an injunction does not issue.

4

Plaintiff does not otherwise detail any purported damage she will suffer.

5

Although styled as a preliminary injunction request, which ordinarily must be

6

made by way of a regularly noticed motion, because the harm complained of by Plaintiff

7

may begin tomorrow the Court will construe her request as a temporary restraining order

8

potentially entitling Plaintiff to the emergency relief she requests.

9

As a request for a temporary restraining order, however, Plaintiff’s request is

10

procedurally defective and must be denied on that basis alone.1 Any application for a

11

temporary restraining order must be made in accordance with Eastern District Local Rule

12

231. Contrary to the provisions of Rule 231(c)(5), Plaintiff has failed to submit an

13

affidavit detailing efforts to provide notice to Defendants, or alternatively, the reasons

14

why such notice should not be required. Plaintiff has also not submitted a brief on all

15

relevant legal issues presented by her motion, or an affidavit in support of the existence

16

of an irreparable injury as set forth in subdivisions (c)(3) and (c)(4), respectively.

17

Consequently, Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary Injunction Relief (ECF No. 3) is

18

DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to renew said Application in accordance

19

with the provisions of Rule 231(c).

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: April 7, 2015

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even if the Court disregarded the procedural defects of Plaintiff’s Application, on a substantive
basis it appears that Plaintiff has identified only “great financial loss” as her basis for claiming irreparable
injury. Monetary damage alone, however, does not constitute irreparable harm. Los Angeles Memorial
Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980). Instead, the requisite irreparable harm
required for immediate injunctive relief must be a “substantial injury that is not accurately measured or
adequately compensable by money damages.” Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d
12, 19 (1st Cir. 1996).

2