Hilton et al v. Obama et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER re 1 Complaint,, filed by Borrowers of the United States of America, Stanley G. Hilton, TaxPayers of the United States of America. Signed by Judge James Ware on April 16, 2009. (jwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Stanley G. Hilton, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 09-01626 JW ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Barack Obama, et al., Defendants. /

On April 14, 2009, Plaintiff Stanley G. Hilton on behalf of himself and the "taxpayers of the United States of America," filed a Complaint for, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief against President Obama and Secretary of the Treasury of the Untied States. Plaintiff seeks a temporary and preliminary injunction to enjoin the President and the Secretary from further using the TARP funds toward corporate bailouts. (See Complaint, Docket Item No. 1.) Although it is unclear as to whether Plaintiff is seeking immediate relief by a way of a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction, the Court addresses these prayers of relief to advance the case. A temporary restraining order may be issued if the plaintiff has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of immediate irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips heavily in its favor. See Metro Publ'g, Ltd. v. San Jose Mercury News, 987 F.2d 637, 639 (9th Cir. 1993). Upon review of Plaintiff's demands, the Court finds that there is little, if any, likelihood of success on the merits. In fact, the Court finds that Plaintiff claims are frivolous and meritless in light of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's demand for a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

temporary and preliminary injunction order. However, since Plaintiff has paid his filing fees, the Court will not sua sponte dismiss this case. Thus, Plaintiff shall properly serve Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) of Fed. R. Civ. P.

Dated: April 16, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Stanley G. Hilton [e-mail] Dated: April 16, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28