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)

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