Watkins v. Teuton et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 5 Motion for TRO.; denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Complaint deadline: 1/16/2017. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/16/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Pele Lacruz Watkins, Sr.,

5

2:16-cv-02425-JAD-GWF

Plaintiff

6

v.

7

Teuton et al.,

8

Order Denying Motions for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction

Defendants

[ECF Nos. 5, 6]

9
10

Plaintiff has filed a “statement of removal” along with over 300 pages of initiating documents

11

and an 83-page motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.1 Though no

12

complaint has been filed, it appears that plaintiff is attempting to remove a case from the Eighth

13

Judicial District Court’s family division and to sue the family-court judge who is presiding over his

14

custody proceedings there. Because this case has not been properly commenced and plaintiff fails to

15

show that he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, I deny the motions.

16

Discussion

17

The legal standard for issuing a temporary restraining order and the legal standard for

18

preliminary injunctive relief are “substantially identical.”2 In Winter v. Natural Resources Defense

19

Council, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified that the standards “require[ ] a party to demonstrate ‘that

20

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

21

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that [a temporary restraining

22

order] is in the public interest.’”3 “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that there are ‘serious questions

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The motions are duplicates docketed separately at ECF Nos. 5, 6.

2

See Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush and Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)
(stating that the “analysis is substantially identical for the injunction and the TRO”).
3

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
Page 1 of 2

1

going to the merits’—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary

2

injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the

3

other two Winter factors are satisfied.”4

4

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the

5

merits of his claims because there is no operative complaint in this case, and thus there are no

6

pending claims. Even if plaintiff had filed an operative complaint, I still would not grant him the

7

relief he requests because it appears that the state-court family proceedings are still ongoing,

8

implicate important state interests, and provide an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.5

9

Additionally, Family Court Judge Teuton enjoys absolute immunity from liability for damages for

10

his actions taken in those proceedings.6

11

Conclusion

12

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction

13

[ECF Nos. 5,6] are DENIED. If plaintiff desires to bring a lawsuit in this district, he must file a

14

proper complaint.7 If plaintiff does not file a proper complaint by January 16, 2017, this case will be

15

dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

16

Dated this 16th day of December, 2016.

17

_________________________________
________________ _____
_ ____________ _
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nifer Dorsey
r
o e
United States District Judge
Judge
ted States
tate
ud

18
19
20
21
22
23

4

24

Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting with
emphasis Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)).

25

5

26

See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2000) (abstention required
where child-custody proceedings were still ongoing).

27

6

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988).

28

7

See FRCP 8.
Page 2 of 2