Hucul v. Mathews Burwell et al

Filing 125

ORDER Denying 124 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Injunction. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/11/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL HUCUL,

Case No.: 16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

v.
SYLVIA MATHEW-BURWELL, et al.,

(ECF No. 124)

Defendants.

15
16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Hucul’s Motion to Grant a Temporary

18

Injunction During the Appeal Process Pursuant to Rule 62(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate

19

Procedure 8. (“PI App. Mot.”, ECF No. 124.) After considering Plaintiff’s arguments and

20

the law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
LEGAL STANDARD

21
22

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(c) allows a party to move the district

23

court to issue, among other things, injunctive relief pending an appeal. However, the

24

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern only the procedures in the courts of appeal.

25

See Fed. R. App. P. 1. In addition, “[w]hen these rules provide for filing a motion or other

26

document in the district court, the procedure must comply with the practice of the district

27

court.” Fed. R. App. P. 1(a)(2). Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one under

28

///
1
16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), which allows a district court to grant an injunction

2

pending appeal “from . . . [a] final judgment that . . . denies an injunction . . . .”

3

“Like any injunction, an injunction pending appeal is ‘an extraordinary remedy that

4

should be granted sparingly.’” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1207

5

(E.D. Cal. 2010). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is

6

likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

7

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

8

the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citing

9

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008)); see also Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City

10

of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d at 1207. In the Ninth

11

Circuit, “serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply

12

towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the

13

plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is

14

in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir.

15

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding that this “sliding scale” approach

16

survives after the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter). This is an “extraordinary remedy

17

that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”

18

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. To warrant injunctive relief, irreparable injury must be more than

19

merely possible. See Midgett v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846, 850

20

(9th Cir. 2001). Rather, the plaintiff must show “that he faces a real or immediate threat”

21

that he will suffer irreparable harm. Id. Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction carry a

22

particularly “heavy burden” of proving their entitlement to it. Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton,

23

626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Munaf, 553 U.S. at 689 (“A preliminary

24

injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy.’”).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

1

ANALYSIS

2

On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit against over thirty Defendants for alleged

3

injuries stemming from various events in a family court case beginning in Michigan and

4

continuing to California, where it is currently pending in San Diego. (See Compl. 29,1 ECF

5

No. 1.) Several Defendants filed motions to dismiss, (see ECF Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32,

6

33, 43, 48, 51, 59, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83), and the Court granted these motions and dismissed

7

Plaintiff’s case with prejudice, (see MTD Order, ECF No. 118). The Clerk of Court entered

8

judgment against Plaintiff and closed the case. (ECF No. 119.) Plaintiff subsequently

9

appealed the Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, where it remains pending. (ECF Nos.

10

120, 121, 122, 123.)

11

Plaintiff now moves the Court for an injunction. Specifically, during the pendency

12

of his Ninth Circuit appeal, Plaintiff seeks “a temporary injunction against the State of

13

California, the County of San Diego and their Department of Child Support Services from

14

suspending Mr. Hucul’s brokers license, his passport, confiscating any of Mr. Hucul’s

15

property including IRS or State of California tax returns and from making reports to any

16

credit reporting agencies.” (PI App. Mot. 11, ECF No. 124.)

17

Plaintiff’s motion fails. To the extent his request is premised on the claims of his

18

initial complaint, which appears to be the case, (see id. at 4–9), the Court finds that,

19

consistent with its Order dismissing Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the

20

merits of those claims. (See generally MTD Order, ECF No. 118 (assessing Plaintiff’s

21

claims and dismissing them with prejudice).) Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate that there are

22

at least serious questions going to the merits of his case. These failures are fatal to

23

Plaintiff’s request. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1135. And Plaintiff

24

fails to discuss the other Winter factors required for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly,

25

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pending appeal.

26
27
28

1

Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each
page.
3
16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

1
2
3
4
5

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction
pending appeal (ECF No. 124).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)