(PS) Roots v. Fox et al

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/10/2025 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 19 Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction be denied. Motion referred to Judge Dena M. Coggins. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Deputy Clerk KEZ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONALD ROOTS,

12
13
14

No. 2:24-cv-1767-DC-CKD (PS)

Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
ROBERT W. FOX, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17

On March 6, 2025, plaintiff Donald Roots filed a motion requesting an expedited

18

preliminary injunction which the court construes as requesting emergency relief under Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 65. (ECF No. 19.) Because plaintiff proceeds without counsel, this matter

20

is referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. This motion

21

is appropriate for decision without oral argument under Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons set

22

forth below, the motion for emergency relief should be denied.

23

I.

Background

24

Plaintiff initiated this action on June 24, 2024, with a fee-paid complaint arising out of

25

harm allegedly suffered in connection with criminal offenses charged against plaintiff in state

26

court. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff brings several causes of action against multiple defendants. (Id.)

27

Through this action, plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief in the

28

form of “Plaintiff’s record shall be restored with restraining Order[s] placed on each defendant,
1

1
2
3
4

arresting them for the purpose of a trial by FACTS.” (Id. at 11.)
Two defendants, Katherine Carlson and defendant Gavin Newsom, have appeared. (ECF
Nos. 11, 12.) Both appearing defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. (Id.)
On March 6, 2025, plaintiff filed the motion for expedited preliminary relief presently

5

before the court. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff requests the court issue the “temporary injunction” that

6

was “stated in the Complaint.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff alleges the defendants are making him appear in

7

court every month and sometimes without giving notice. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff has been ordered to

8

appear in Department 4 of the 9th Street Courthouse again on April 16, 2025. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s

9

motion further states “those persons who bought the Plaintiff’s vehicles from Alfa Brothers

10

Towing et al. are thereby… Restrained.” (Id. at 2.)

11

II.

Legal Standard

12

The purpose of a temporary restraining order under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of

13

Civil Procedure is to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm “so long as is

14

necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415

15

U.S. 423, 439 (1974). In determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order, a court relies

16

on the same factors that guide the evaluation of a request for preliminary injunctive relief:

17

whether the moving party “is likely to succeed on the merits, ... likely to suffer irreparable harm

18

in the absence of preliminary relief, ... the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and ... an

19

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

20

(2008); see also Stuhlbarg Int’l. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th

21

Cir. 2001) (stating the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is

22

“substantially identical”).

23

Courts within this circuit may also consider a request for a temporary restraining order or

24

preliminary injunction using a “sliding scale” test in which “a stronger showing of one element

25

may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

26

1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). “[W]hen plaintiffs establish that the balance of hardships tips sharply

27

in their favor, there is a likelihood of irreparable injury, and the injunction is in the public interest,

28

they need only show ‘serious questions’ on the merits.” Where Do We Go Berkeley v. California
2

1

Dep’t of Transp., 32 F.4th 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632

2

F.3d at 1135).

3

The Eastern District of California's local rules impose specific requirements on those who

4

request a temporary restraining order. See Local Rule 231. Among other things, these rules

5

require “actual notice to the affected party and/or counsel” except in “the most extraordinary of

6

circumstances.” Local Rule 231(a). “Appropriate notice would inform the affected party and/or

7

counsel of the intention to seek a temporary restraining order, the date and time for hearing to be

8

requested …, and the nature of the relief to be requested.” Id.

9
10

A court may issue a temporary restraining order “without written or oral notice to the
adverse party” only if

11

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show
that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to
the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

12
13

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

14
15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

16

When deciding whether to issue a temporary restraining order, the court may rely on

17

declarations, affidavits, and exhibits, among other things. See Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d

18

1067, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009). This evidence need not conform to the standards that apply at

19

summary judgment or trial. Id; Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984).

20

III.

Analysis

21

As a preliminary matter, plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of this court’s local

22

rule governing applications for temporary restraining orders. Plaintiff has not filed a brief on all

23

relevant legal issues presented by the motion, has not filed an affidavit in support of the existence

24

of an irreparable injury, has not filed an affidavit detailing notice, or efforts to effect notice to the

25

affected parties or counsel or showing good cause why notice should not be given, 1 and has not

26
27
28

1

The court does not assume all affected parties or counsel received actual notice of plaintiff’s
motion for expedited preliminary injunction through CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing because
not all named defendants have appeared in this matter.
3

1

filed a proposed order. The motion is therefore procedurally defective to the extent it requests a

2

temporary restraining order. See Local Rule 231. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

3

requirements of this court’s local rules is sufficient justification to deny a temporary restraining

4

order. See Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012)

5

(“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district

6

court’s discretion.”); Nible v. Macomber, No. 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK-PC, 2024 WL 2133319,

7

at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2024) (denying temporary restraining order sought by pro se plaintiff as

8

procedurally deficient).

9

In addition, plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is premature because there is

10

presently a dispute over whether one appearing defendant (Katherine Carlson) has been properly

11

served and a dispute over whether the only other appearing defendant (Gavin Newsom) is

12

immune from suit. (See ECF Nos. 11, 12.) “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has

13

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not

14

attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d

15

719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).

16

Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate he is likely to succeed on the merits of any claim as

17

required for a preliminary injunction to issue. Plaintiff’s motion does not furnish the court with

18

any legal authority or evidence supporting his claims. As the moving party, plaintiff bears the

19

burden of establishing the merits of his claims. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Likelihood of success

20

on the merits is the most important Winter factor, and it is also relevant to the court’s evaluation

21

of the other factors See Baird v. Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036, 1044 (9th Cir. 2023). Without showing a

22

likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiff also does not establish that the balance of equities

23

tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. See id.; Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.

24

Plaintiff also does not establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

25

of preliminary relief. Plaintiff’s motion appears to allege merely that he is being required to make

26

appearances in an ongoing criminal case. Nothing in the motion suggests plaintiff is at risk of any

27

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. A plaintiff must do more than merely allege

28

imminent harm; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to
4

1

preliminary injunctive relief. Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League,

2

634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, plaintiff’s motion does not come close to alleging the

3

type of irreparable harm necessary for a preliminary injunction. See FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d

4

1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 1997) (the threat of injury “must be imminent, not remote or speculative”),

5

cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998); Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674

6

(9th Cir. 1988) (“Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant

7

granting a preliminary injunction.”).

8

Finally, based on the vague assertions in plaintiff’s motion for an expedited preliminary

9

injunction, it appears injunctive relief is barred by the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,

10

43-54 (1971). Principles of comity and federalism weigh against a federal court interfering with

11

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under

12

extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 43-54. Younger abstention is required when (1) state

13

proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) state proceedings involve important state

14

interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional

15

issue. Middlesex County Ethic Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

16

The first prong of Younger is met because plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief appears

17

to be addressed to ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777,

18

781 (9th Cir. 1988). The second prong of Younger is met because an important state interest is

19

implicated by criminal proceedings. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). The third

20

prong of Younger is also satisfied because state criminal proceedings generally provide an

21

opportunity for constitutional questions to be presented by their nature. Federal courts assume

22

state procedures will afford an adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional claims “in

23

the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1,

24

15 (1987); see also Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Properly framed, the

25

third requirement for Younger abstention asks whether there remains an opportunity to litigate the

26

federal claim in a state-court proceeding at the time the federal court is considering whether to

27

abstain.”)

28

////
5

1

Under plaintiff’s vague allegations in the present motion, he is a defendant in an active

2

criminal case in state court with further pre-trial hearings set to take place. The court finds no

3

indication that plaintiff is unable to bring any constitutional challenges in his still-pending

4

criminal case. Plaintiff’s vague allegations do not set forth extraordinary circumstances

5

warranting federal intervention. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n, 457 U.S. at 435; Brown

6

v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900-901 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, this court must abstain from

7

issuing the requested preliminary injunction.

8

IV.

9

For all the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

10

Recommendation

motion for expedited preliminary injunction (ECF No. 19) be denied.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

12

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

13

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

14

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

15

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

16

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within seven (7) days after service of the

17

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

18

District court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951

19

F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Dated: March 10, 2025

21
22
23

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8, roots24cv1767.mpi

24
25
26
27
28
6