Travis Bondurant v. People of the State of California

Filing 49

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 43 . Plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction should be issued. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 04/08/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge) (cap).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12

TRAVIS BONDURANT

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10cv1945 AJB (JMA)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

17
18
On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary
19
Injunction and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 43).
20
21
In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and others are performing research on him
22
and controlling his “liberty of conscience” with “Brainwave technology known as NeuroFeedback
23
technology.” Plaintiff’s motion asks that the Court set a hearing and require the Defendants to show
24
cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued enjoining the Defendants and others from
25
continuing in their alleged research activities which inflict “cruel and unusual pain to [his] brains and
26
bodies.” During the period of time leading up to the hearing, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining
27
order to enjoin the Defendants’ alleged actions in the meantime.
28
1

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\10cv1945 Bondurant TRO & Prelim Inj.wpd

10cv01945 AJB (JMA)

1

When determining whether to grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the

2

Court applies the preliminary injunction standard articulated in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

3

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The party seeking the temporary restraining order or

4

preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood

5

of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor;

6

and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 374. Plaintiff’s motion mistakenly suggests that

7

it is the Defendants’ burden to show cause in opposition to Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining

8

order and preliminary injunction when, in fact, Plaintiff bears that burden as the movant. Accordingly,

9

the Court must consider whether Plaintiff’s motion satisfies the preliminary injunction standard.

10

Plaintiff’s motion consists of a long and disjointed list of those actions taken by the Defendants and

11

others that he seeks to enjoin. However, there is no reference made to any evidence that the Plaintiff

12

will be able to offer in order to establish that the Defendants’ or others are engaged in the actions listed

13

in his motion. As such, Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. Because

14

Plaintiff failed to show the requisite likelihood of success on the merits, the Court does not consider the

15

remaining three factors.

16
17

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing that a temporary

18

restraining order or preliminary injunction should be issued. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

19

motion.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

DATED: April 8, 2011

24
25

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

26
27
28
2

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\10cv1945 Bondurant TRO & Prelim Inj.wpd

10cv01945 AJB (JMA)