Gavin v. Arntz et al

Filing 5

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 3 TRO Request without notice; and setting hearing on TRO Request if notice is provided (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 LYNN GAVIN, 7 8 9 v. JOHN ARNTZ, et al. No. C 13-0056 PJH ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST, DENYING TRO WITHOUT NOTICE, AND SETTING HEARING ON TRO REQUEST IF NOTICE IS PROVIDED Defendants. _______________________________/ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, 12 Before the court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP request”), 13 along with plaintiff’s “ex parte application for an emergency temporary restraining order for 14 a preliminary injunction for the swearing in of Norman Yee for District 7 and permanent 15 injunction enjoining all defendants.” Plaintiff’s request was filed on the afternoon of January 16 4, 2013, and seeks to enjoin actions scheduled to occur on January 8, 2013. 17 While plaintiff claims to be proceeding ex parte, she has not complied with Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), which allows the issuance of a temporary restraining order 19 (“TRO”) without notice to the adverse parties only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a 20 verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will 21 result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and if the 22 movant “certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should 23 not be required.” Plaintiff has not complied with these requirements, and thus the court 24 cannot issue a TRO before the defendants receive notice of the TRO request. 25 Because plaintiff is seeking to enjoin actions scheduled to occur only four days from 26 today (on January 8, 2013), any hearing on plaintiff’s TRO request would need to be 27 scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2013. While the court has reviewed plaintiff’s IFP 28 request, and finds that plaintiff does qualify for IFP status, the U.S. Marshals will not be 1 able to serve plaintiff’s TRO request (which was filed this afternoon) before Monday. 2 Because plaintiff’s IFP request is GRANTED, however, the U.S. Marshals will still effect 3 service of the complaint itself. 4 If plaintiff intends to proceed with her TRO request, she must effect service of the 5 request on all defendants before Monday, January 7, 2013. If plaintiff is able to serve the 6 TRO request on defendants by January 7, and files proofs of service with the Clerk’s office 7 before 9:00am on January 7, then the court will conduct a hearing on plaintiff’s TRO 8 request on Monday, January 7, at 10:00am. However, because plaintiff’s request was 9 received late in the day, this order is being filed after the close of business hours, and the court recognizes that it is unlikely that plaintiff (who is proceeding pro se, and does not 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 receive electronic notice of court orders) will receive notice of this order in time to effect 12 service of the TRO request before Monday. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2013 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?