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)
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?