Maxey v. Johnson, et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/4/15 DENYING 1 Motion for Injunctive Relief. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES C. MAXEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-01656-MCE-DAD

v.

ORDER

KEVIN JOHNSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff James C. Maxey (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the Sacramento County

18

Superior Court on July 31, 2015, and Defendants removed the action to this Court on

19

August 4, 2015. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are

20

“electromagnetically tortur[ing]” him, and he seeks a temporary restraining order that

21

suspends the construction of the Sacramento sports arena and places Plaintiff “in

22

‘protective custody’ for Plaintiff’s safety and well-being.” Id. at Ex. A. For the reasons

23

that follow, Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
This Court recently denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Injunctive Relief in a

24
25

case that Plaintiff filed just weeks before he filed this action. See Maxey v. California,

26

Case No. 2:15-cv-01597-JAM-EFB, ECF No. 4. As the Court explained in a July 14,

27

2015, order in the prior case:

28

///
1

1

In order to qualify for injunctive relief, Plaintiff must, at
minimum, demonstrate a “fair chance of success” that his
claims will ultimately prevail on their merits. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Calif. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427,
1430 (9th Cir. 1995).
This means that Plaintiff must
demonstrate some likelihood of obtaining a favorable result in
his case in chief. See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
239 F.3d 1004, 1015, fn.3 (9th Cir. 2001). No matter how
severe or irreparable the injury asserted, an injunction should
never issue if the moving party’s claims are so legally
untenable that there is virtually no chance of prevailing on the
merits. State of Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175,
180 (5th Cir. 1975).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

As in the prior case, the Court finds that the inherent implausibility of the claims

10

asserted by Plaintiff makes it impossible for this Court to conclude there is any likelihood

11

he will ultimately prevail. On that basis alone, the requested temporary restraining order

12

cannot issue. Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1) is accordingly

13

DENIED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2015

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2