Davis v. San Diego District Attorney et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/30/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

Case No.: 17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.
SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
MR. LEONARD TRINH; SAN DIEGO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOES,

15
16

(ECF No. 9)

Defendants.

17
18
19

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gavin B. Davis’s Emergency Motion for

20

Preliminary Injunction. (“PI Mot.,” ECF No. 9.) Also before the Court are Defendant San

21

Diego District Attorney Leonard Trinh’s and Defendant San Diego Police Department’s

22

responses in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, (ECF Nos. 11, 12, respectively), and

23

Plaintiff’s reply in support of his motion, (“PI Mot. Reply,” ECF No. 16). After considering

24

the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

The same standard governs TROs and preliminary injunctions. Stuhlbard Int’l Sales

3

Co. v. John D. Brush and Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “A plaintiff seeking

4

a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

5

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

6

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res.

7

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90

8

(2008)); see also Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.

9

2009); Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2010). In the

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

1

ANALYSIS

2
3

Plaintiff filed his emergency motion for preliminary injunction on April 25, 2017.
(ECF No. 9.) In the Requested Relief section, Plaintiff requests:

4
5

1. That the Court “restrain[] Defendant SDDA from seeking Custody of the Plaintiff

6

until such time as the California Attorney General fully opines on jurisdiction, as the

7

Plaintiff alleges that each of Defendant Leonard and Defendant SDDA, do not have

8

it, in any capacity”;

9

2. That the Court “ensure . . . that Defendant SDPD, does not communicate,

10

temporarily, with other police departments in an effort to seek Custody, prematurely

11

and without legal right, of the Plaintiff”;

12

3. That the Court enjoin Judge Jeffrey Fraser from presiding over his two criminal

13

cases.

14
15

(PI Mot. 9–101.)

16

Plaintiff’s motion fails. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is difficult to

17

understand. He appears to generally discuss events occurring in two of his state law cases.

18

(Id. at 5–8.) Apparently Judge Jeffrey Fraser issued a bench warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest

19

on April 17, 2017, and Plaintiff has filed, in his state court cases, motions to remove Judge

20

Fraser from presiding over his cases and a motion to quash the bench warrant. (Id. at 6.)

21

Plaintiff alleges that on April 24, 2017, officers attempted to execute the arrest warrant,

22

which Plaintiff argues caused him reputational harm. (Id. at 7.) Because Plaintiff argues he

23

is contesting the validity of the warrant, he further argues that the officers do not have the

24

authority to arrest him based on the same, and thus he apparently seeks an order from this

25

Court barring officers from taking him into custody. (Id. at 7–8.)

26
27
28

1

Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each
page.
3
17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

1

Although Plaintiff engages with the relevant Winter factors in support of his motion

2

for a preliminary injunction, he fails to persuade the Court to grant him this “extraordinary”

3

remedy. First, Plaintiff argues that “[t]here is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will

4

prevail on the merits because the right to each of Due Process and counsel are some of the

5

most basic and fundamental rights afforded to criminal defendants, which the Plaintiff is

6

awaiting federal rulings on, while clearly not evading the law, and not a threat to anyone.”2

7

(Id. at 8.) This is insufficient to prove a likelihood of success on the merits. Among other

8

things, Plaintiff does not explain what federal rulings he is “awaiting”; and, more

9

fundamentally, “awaiting” a ruling on a matter is not indicative of a likelihood of success

10

on that matter or otherwise. At the very least Plaintiff must explain why he is likely to

11

succeed on those federal matters and, of course, how rulings on those matters are relevant

12

to his requested relief. To the extent his motion is premised on his motions in state court,

13

Plaintiff has failed to show that he will succeed in his challenge to Judge Fraser or any

14

other relief he seeks in that forum.

15

Furthermore, Plaintiff, in a conclusory manner, states he “will suffer irreparable, and

16

separately imminent harm, prima facie, if the preliminary injunction is not granted,” and

17

that “[t]here is no adequate remedy of law other than seeking this relief herein.” (PI Mot.

18

8.) This is plainly insufficient to establish “a clear showing that [he] is entitled to such

19

relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Finally, Plaintiff argues that an injunction is in the public

20

interest because “the right to due process and/or the assistance of counsel are some of the

21

most fundamental rights to be afforded to a criminal defendant . . . .” (Id. at 9; see also PI

22

Mot. Reply 17.) While the Court agrees with this statement in the abstract, Plaintiff has not

23

demonstrated a likelihood that these rights have been violated in this case. Additionally,

24

Defendants argue that “Plaintiff does not seek to protect any public interests, and a superior

25

court judge seems to have determined the opposite—that Plaintiff presents enough of a risk

26
27
28

In his reply in support of his motion, Plaintiff further argues that “it is clear that the plaintiff’s federal
rights have been violated.” (PI Mot. Reply 16.) But saying that does not make it so. Thus, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that he is likely to prevail on the merits of his case.
2

4
17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)

1

to others that he must be taken into custody.” (E.g., ECF No. 11, at 4.) On balance, the

2

Court finds that the Winter factors do not favor a grant of injunctive relief, and that Plaintiff

3

has failed to at least demonstrate serious questions going to the merits of his claims and

4

that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

5

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9).3

6

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for

7
8

Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9).

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: May 30, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
For this reason the Court does not reach Defendants’ alternative argument that the Court should abstain
from hearing this case under the principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny. The
Court will, however, consider this argument—and others—in assessing Defendants’ pending motions to
dismiss.
3

27
28

5
17-CV-654 JLS (BGS)