Mehmood v. Sarani
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/6/2018 VACATING 53 Motion for TRO. (Hunt, G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-00970 KJM AC PS
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the
undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). This matter is before
the court on plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 53.
Plaintiff moves for an expedited temporary restraining order to be issued to enjoin
defendant from “either personally or through third parties causing to sale of any asset or any thing
of value during the pendency of this civil action.” ECF No. 53 at 1. This motion cannot be
considered, because plaintiff has not complied with the notice requirements set forth in Local
Rule 231(a) and Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (“Rule”) 65(b). The circumstances in which the court may
issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party are limited.
See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1)(A). Those circumstances are not present here. Specifically, there
are no facts in plaintiff’s complaint or any supporting affidavit that “clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be
heard in opposition[.]” See id. Neither plaintiff’s general allegations that defendant is disposing
of assets, nor his conclusory assertion that he will be denied relief in his case if the temporary
restraining order is not granted, supports consideration of the TRO application without notice to
Additionally, the motion for a temporary restraining order is defective because plaintiff
has not provided all the necessary documents required under Local Rule 231(c), such as an
affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury and a provision for a bond within the
proposed temporary restraining order. ECF No. 53. To the extent plaintiff intends to seek a
preliminary injunction, such a motion must be filed in accordance with Local Rule 231(d) and
Rule 65(a) and must be noticed for an available calendar date.
The court further notes that plaintiff has filed previous requests for emergency relief that
have been vacated or denied as procedurally defective. See ECF Nos. 28, 32. The court’s
previous orders have advised plaintiff of the requirements for seeking a temporary injunction, id.,
but plaintiff has not conformed his motion to those requirements. Plaintiff has also filed
numerous other documents not contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and without
any legal effect. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 35-39 (“Due Process Notices” regarding damages, interest,
and other matters related to remedies). These filings burden the court and fail to advance the
litigation. Plaintiff is cautioned that “pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that
govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Future motions that
do not substantially conform to the Federal Rules of Procedure and the Local Rules of this court
will be summarily vacated.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining
order, ECF No. 53, is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 6, 2018
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?