Walker v. Colvin
Filing
15
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. The court schedules this action for a Case Management Conference on 9/20/2013 at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement, or separate statements as appropriate, on or before 9/13/2013. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/30/2013. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/30/2013: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-01762 EJD
FRANK S. WALKER,
11
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of
Social Security,
[Docket Item No(s). 1, 8, 10]
14
15
Defendant(s).
/
16
17
Plaintiff Frank S. Walker (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action on April 18, 2013, which
18
appears to constitute a challenge to a reduction in an unspecified federal payment by the Department
19
of the Treasury. According to documentation provided by Plaintiff, the Department of the Treasury
20
reduced Plaintiff’s payment pursuant to a purported debt owed by Plaintiff to the Social Security
21
Administration. Liberally construing the pleadings, this action seems to arise under 26 U.S.C. §
22
6402(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 404.1
23
24
Presently before the court are Plaintiff’s various requests for a Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO”). See Docket Item Nos. 1, 8, 10. Although the specific relief requested is unclear, the
25
26
27
28
1
This statement, however, should not be taken as a determination that the case is properly
before the court. That jurisdictional question, if it is an open one, should be settled through an
appropriate motion addressing the issue. What is apparent, however, is that this action is not one for
review of a benefits decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Social Security Procedural Order
issued by the Clerk (see Docket Item No. 5) was therefore issued in error and is VACATED.
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-01762 EJD
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
present record taken as a whole suggests that Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant Carolyn
2
W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), to return the payment.
3
“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate
4
(1) ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
5
absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an
6
injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009).
7
A TRO may also issue if “serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the
8
hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” thereby allowing preservation of the status quo where
9
complex legal questions require further inspection or deliberation. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff has not made the showing required for the issuance of a TRO. Potential
12
jurisdictional issues aside, he has not shown likely success on the merits because the documentation
13
submitted does not explain in an understandable manner the basis for Plaintiff’s challenge to the
14
payment reduction. In addition, Plaintiff has not indicated how he will suffer irreparable harm in the
15
absence of injunctive relief. Finally, the court does not find that “serious questions” have been
16
raised so as to justify the issuance of a TRO under the Ninth Circuit’s alternative test.
17
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a TRO is DENIED. The court schedules this action for a
18
Case Management Conference on September 20, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a Joint
19
Case Management Statement, or separate statements as appropriate, on or before September 13,
20
2013.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated: May 30, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01762 EJD
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
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?