Solomon v. College of Southern Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER re 1 Petition for Temporary Injunction, filed by Gary Solomon. The court is unable to grant plaintiff's motion at this time, as plaintiff has failed to file a complaint against defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 ("A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court."). Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/7/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

GARY SOLOMON,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:14-cv-00020-JCM-CWH

COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA,
et al.,

ORDER

14
Defendants.
15
16
ORDER
17
18
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Gary Solomon’s motion for a temporary
19
restraining order against defendants College of Southern Nevada, Michael Richards, Kevin Page,
20
Rick Trachok, Andrea Anderson, Robert Blakely, Cedric Crear, Mark Doubrava, Jason Geddes, Ron
21
Knecht, James, Leavitt, Kevin Melcher, Jack Schofield, Allison Stephens, Michael Wixom, Imelda
22
De La Torre, Tina Holcomb, Martha Dominguez, and “Board of Regents” (“defendants”). (Doc. # 1).
23
In his motion, plaintiff alleges that defendants have formed a plan to end the College of
24
Southern Nevada’s “late registration” policy. Plaintiff claims that on January 21, 2014, respondents
25
plan to “direct employees of the College of Southern Nevada to deny, in person, by phone, or
26

1

electronically, the petitioner, hundreds of qualified taxpaying students and taxpaying families of their

2

[c]onstitutional right and liberty to register and take classes at any of the public, non-private College

3

of Southern Nevada campuses and distance education on-line classes, irrespective of the fact that

4

petitioner can pay for petitioner’s class(es) and that, in fact, petitioner has first hand knowledge that

5

classroom space is available.” Id. at 3:8-14.

6

Plaintiff alleges that the elimination of the late-registration policy will cause the

7

“[i]rreparable harm of educational interruption, financial harm, and personal detriment through

8

designed discrimination and racial profiling.” Id. at 3:15-16.

9

The court is unable to grant plaintiff’s motion at this time, as plaintiff has failed to file a

10

complaint against defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a

11

complaint with the court.”).

12

Additionally, plaintiff claims generally that the alleged harm will be suffered by “petitioner,

13

hundreds of qualified taxpaying students and taxpaying families” without identifying how he will

14

individually suffer concrete harm from this policy. Without an allegation that the policy will cause an

15

imminent injury to plaintiff individually, plaintiff cannot have standing to sue in this court. See Lujan

16

v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 574 (1992) (“The party who invokes the power [of judicial

17

review] must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is

18

immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not

19

merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally”).

20

DATED: January 7, 2014

21
22

_________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
2