Delorean v. First Horizon Home Loans, et al

Filing 6

ORDER: Denying Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 4 ; Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 1 . Signed on 03/05/2010 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (km)

03/05/2010 FRI 10:17 FAX [phone] US DISTRICT COURT OREGON

~ 0011005

I N THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON L E S L I E DELOREAN Plaintiff,
v.
) ) )

Civ. No. 10-302l-CL ORDER

)
) )
) ) ) ) )

F I R S T HORIZON HOME LOANS, MERS AND DOES 1 - 1 0 , Defendants.

PANNER, J .

Pro Se p l a i n t i f f Leslie Delorean p e t i t i o n s for in forma pauperis sta'tus and moves for an ex parte temporary restra.ining order. I grant the p e t i t i o n to proceed in forma pauperis and

d e n y t h e m o t i o n f o r a. t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r .
I.

In Forma Pauperis Stat.us

A party seeking to bring a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee of $350. ORDER 28 U.S.C. § 1914. A c i v i l a c t i o n may

1

-

03/05/2010 FRI 10:17 FAX [phone] US DISTRICT COURT OREGON

~ 002/005

....

.. . . .

proceed without the prepayment of a filing fee only i f the court grants an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
§

1915(a).

This court has discretion in deciding whether to grant in
forma pauperis s t a t u s .

See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616

(9th Cir. 1990).

To q u a l i f y f o r i n forma pauperis s t a t u s , a

civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims the litigant seeks to pursue are not frivolous. 1915(e)
(2)

28 U.S.C.

§

1915 (a) (1),
A

(B) ( i ) ; O ' l , o u g h l i n , 9 2 0 F . 2 d a t 6 1 7 .

l i t i g a n t must

show t h a t he or she "cannot because of h i s poverty p a y o r give security for the costs and s t i l l be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life." de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Adkins v. E.I. DuPont Litigants are not

required to contribute t h e i r " l a s t dollar" or "make themselves and their dependents wholly destitute." Id. Here, p l a i n t i f f states she i s not employed but does not s t a t e the date of her l a s t employment or her salary while previously employed. P l a i n t i f f receives some money from used

b o o k s a l e s b u t d o e s n o t s t a t e how m u c h m o n e y s h e r e c e i v e s f r o m these sales. Plaintiff states she has $100.00 in checking and I conclude that plaintiff qualifies for in

savings accounts.

forma pauperis s t a t u s .

III III
2ORDER

03/05/2010 FRI 10:17 FAX [phone] US DISTRICT COURT OREGON

~ 003/005

II.

Temporary Restraininq Order
The
N~nth

Circuit has described the standards for deciding
mot~on

whether to grant a

for a preliminary injunction:

To o b t a i n a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , t h e moving p a r t y must show e i t h e r (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the p o s s i b i l i t y of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , or (2) t h a t s e r i o u s questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in i t s favor. These formulations are not different tests but represent two points on a s l i d i n g scale in which the d e g r e e o f ~rreparable h a r m i n c r e a s e s a s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of success on the merits decreases. U n d e r e~ther formulat~on, t h e m o v i n g p a r t y m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e a significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury. Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of Anchorage Seh. 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
D~st.,

The

speculative risk of a possible injury i s not enough; the threatened harm must be imminent. Inc. v.
Baldr~ge,

Caribbean Marine Services Co., (9th C i r . 1988); Fed. R. Civ.

844 F.2d 668,

674

Proe. 65 (b) (1) (A).
restra~n~ng

The standards for issuing a temporary

order are similar to those required for a preliminary Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes

injunction.

A i r c r a f t Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Ca. 1995). Nowhere in the 42-page complaint or i n her
mot~on

for a

temporary restraining order does plaintiff explicitly state that defendants have actually initiated foreclosure proceedings. Likewise, p l a i n t i f f does not r e v e a l the d a t e her home w i l l be sold, or even i f i t will be sold at a l l absent a temporary restraining order. 3 - ORDER Even assuming, for the purpose of t h i s

03/05/2010 FRI 10:17 FAX [phone] US DISTRICT COURT OREGON

~ 004/005

motion, that p l a i n t i f f i s l i k e l y to succeed on the merits of her complaint, she has not yet demonstrated any imminent harm. For example, p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint i s "to estop defendants['J possible sale or disposal of [plaintiff's real estate] ." (Complaint, 1.) Defendants threatened "to take the "Plaintiff is requesting as to

'property' by sale."

l.Q...:.. a t 5 .

who has t h e o r i g i n a l s i g n e d , and s e a l e d promissory note executed by Plaintiff in reference to the 'property.' answered." rd. at 6. This must be

"Plaintiff is requesting that defendants

p r o v e t h a t t h e y a r e f o l l o w i n g GAAP a n d w i l l l e t t h e i r b o o k s a n d records be produced as evidence of this." rd. at 7.

P l a i n t i f f makes similar requests in the Motion for Restraining Order With Points and A u t h o r i t i e s ("MTRO").
HORIZON HOME LOANS, "FIRST

has "repeatedly refused to document and verify (MTRO, 2 ) ( e m p h a s i s i n

an o b l i g a t i o n which P l a i n t i f f may owe." original).

None of these a l l e g a t i o n s demonstrate imminent harm

justifying an ex parte temporary restraining order. Because plaintiff is pro se, the court reminds p l a i n t i f f t h a t a preliminary i n j u n c t i o n may be issued only upon n o t i c e t o defendants. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(a) (1). On a r e l a t e d n o t e ,

p l a i n t i f f must properly serve defendants or risk the dismissal of her complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m), 41(b).

1/1 1//
4-

ORDER

03/05/2010 FRI 10:17 FAX [phone] US DISTRICT COURT OREGON

~ 005/005

CONCLUSION

P l a i n t i f f ' s application to proceed in forma pauperis i s GRANTED. DENIED. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order
lS

~~ay

of March, 2010.

OWEN M. PANNER U . S . D I S T R I C T JUDGE

- ORDER