Turner v. Jordan et al

Filing 7

ORDER DENYING 1 application for TRO. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 01/04/2013. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. C 12-06516 CRB STEPHEN B. TURNER, ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiff, v. HOWARD JORDAN ET AL., Defendants. / 16 17 This suit by Plaintiff Stephen Turner against Howard Jordan, the chief of the Oakland 18 Police Department, and related entities challenges the Oakland Police Department’s alleged 19 policy of permitting sex offenders to register only on Thursday or Saturday of any given 20 week. See generally dkt. 1. Turner says that policy violates California Penal Code section 21 290, and also violated Turner’s First Amendment rights because Turner was forced to 22 register on Saturday November 24, 2012, the Jewish Sabbath, when the police department 23 was closed on Thanksgiving (Thursday, November 22, 2012). 24 Turner’s suit includes five causes of action styled as follows: (1) “[i]ntentional 25 violation of the Establishment Clause,” dkt. 1 at 8; (2) negligent infliction of emotional 26 distress, id. at 9; (3) “a Monell claim [of] a policy or custom of repeated constitutional 27 violations, id. at 10; (4) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, id. at 11; and (5) violation of 42 28 U.S.C. § 1986, id. at 12. The suit requests damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction barring the police department from continuing the policy. Id. at 14. 1 A plaintiff seeking pretrial injunctive relief1 “must establish [1] that he is likely to 2 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 3 preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction 4 is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 5 (2008). 6 Turner has not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm. He says only that “there is the 7 distinct possibility that a recurrence of the November 24, 2012, incident could arise 8 sometime in the future, that would require Turner to register on the Jewish Sabbath.” Dkt. 1 9 at 16. Turner has identified no looming Thursday holidays that coincide with a week he is United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 required to register, and his speculation about “distinct possibilities” that might arise 11 “sometime” does not establish any likelihood of irreparable harm, let alone “immediate” 12 damage that will “result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Turner’s ex parte application for a TRO. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 4, 2013 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Turner’s request for injunctive relief, which he sometimes refers to as an ex parte request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and at other times calls a request for a preliminary injunction, see dkt. 1 at 16-17, was not properly made in a separately filed motion as required by Northern District of California Local Rule 7-1. Rather, Turner filed an omnibus 17-page document that included both his complaint and a request for injunctive relief after the signature page of his complaint. See dkt. 1. Because the Court has no reason to believe Defendants have received notice of this request (and Turner has failed to describe his efforts in that regard in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B)), the Court will analyze the request as an ex parte application for a TRO. G:\CRBALL\2012\6516\order re tro v2.wpd 2

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?