January v. Harris et al
Filing
19
ORDER: For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the specific relief requested by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order (ECF 12 ). Signed on 10/23/2024 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MERVIN W. JANUARY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:24-cv-575-JR
ORDER
v.
BRESHAWN N. HARRIS and
SARITA J. HILL,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
Plaintiff Mervin W. January, representing himself, brings this case against Defendants
Breshawn N. Harris and Sarita J. Hill, with whom he has children and owes child support
obligations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to harass and defame Plaintiff and posted
defamatory information about Plaintiff on a private Facebook group called “Deadbeat Fathers.”
Plaintiff alleges that the harassment and posting of information on the internet by Defendants has
caused Plaintiff severe mental distress, negatively affected his reputation, and resulted in him
losing several jobs and the diminishment of his ministry opportunities.
Plaintiff filed a document titled “Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Emergency Injunction.” ECF 12-1. Plaintiff filed no other document relating to his request for an
PAGE 1 – ORDER
injunction (other than a cover sheet), so the Court construed Plaintiff’s memorandum as a motion
for temporary restraining order (TRO) and ordered defendant Sarita J. Hill, the only defendant
who has appeared in this litigation, to respond to the motion. Ms. Hill, representing herself, filed
a response opposing the motion. ECF 18.
In deciding whether to grant a motion for TRO, courts look to substantially the same
factors that apply to a court’s decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction. See
Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).] A
preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction generally must show that:
(1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff;
and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20 (rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s earlier
rule that the mere “possibility” of irreparable harm, as opposed to its likelihood, was sufficient,
in some circumstances, to justify a preliminary injunction).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Winter, however, did not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s
alternative “serious questions” test. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this test, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship
balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the
other two elements of the Winter test are also met.”1 Id. at 1132. Thus, a preliminary injunction
The Ninth Circuit appears to have narrowed the “serious questions” test to serious
factual questions that need to be resolved, see Assurance Wireless USA, L.P. v. Reynolds, 100
F.4th 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2024), although the cases cited for that proposition do not limit the
serious questions test only to factual disputes. Regardless of the contours of the serious questions
1
PAGE 2 – ORDER
may be granted “if there is a likelihood of irreparable injury to plaintiff; there are serious
questions going to the merits; the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the plaintiff; and
the injunction is in the public interest.” M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706, 725 (9th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff argues in his motion that due to the allegedly defaming information posted
online about him by Defendants, he has lost three “6-figure income jobs,” had his church
membership decline from 75 members to five members, and had his driver’s license suspended.
Ms. Hill responds that she has not posted anything online about Plaintiff and has not contacted
any of his employers or church members. Ms. Hill explains that Plaintiff has never paid child
support despite being ordered to do so by a court, and she supports that statement with a copy of
a Judgment from the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County.
In his motion for TRO, Plaintiff does not request that the Court enjoin Defendants from
doing anything. Instead, Plaintiff requests that the Court enjoin the two Oregon state child
support division caseworkers assigned to the cases involving each respective Defendant from
having Plaintiff’s driver’s license suspended.
The Court need not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, however, because the Court
cannot provide the relief requested. Enjoining the two Oregon child support division caseworkers
is not a proper form of relief that the Court may grant in this action for two reasons. First,
Plaintiff’s child support obligations and enforcement by the child support division in Oregon
arise from judgments issued by state courts. Under what is known as “the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine,” this federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s essentially collateral attack on
those state court judgments. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F3d 1148, 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003)
(explaining that the doctrine prevents federal courts from hearing appeals of state courts or de
test, however, Plaintiff’s motion fails because he seeks relief against parties outside the
jurisdiction of the Court.
PAGE 3 – ORDER
facto appeals from a state court decision and “any issue raised in the suit that is ‘inextricably
intertwined’ with an issue resolved by the state court in its judicial decision”); see also Riley v.
Knowles, 2016 WL 259336, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2016) (finding request to “vacate” family
court order and child support debt to be a de facto appeal of state court order directing plaintiff to
pay child support); Rucker v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 2003 WL 21440151, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June
17, 2003) (dismissing, under Rooker-Feldman, a complaint alleging that garnishment of
disability benefits for child support payments was unconstitutional, because the constitutional
challenge was “inextricably intertwined” with state court’s judgment regarding child support
obligations). In short, a federal court may not sit as a de facto state court of appeals to review
general enforcement decisions by a state child support agency regarding child support judgments
issued by a state court.
Second, Rule 65(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the persons or
entities against whom a federal court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Under that rule, a
federal court may issue an injunction against the parties in a lawsuit as well as their agents,
officers, and employees, and any others who are in “active concert or participation” with those
persons. Here, however, Plaintiff has not explained how the two state agency caseworkers, who
are not parties in this lawsuit, come within the scope of Rule 65(d)(2). See Zepeda v. INS, 753
F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal
jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to
determine the rights of persons not before the court.”); see also Lipsey v. Kalil, 2021 WL
913163, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021 (“[B]ecause they are not defendants, the court does not
have jurisdiction over the appeals coordinator or third-level reviewer unless Plaintiff provides
facts showing that they are Defendants’ agents or are acting ‘in active concert or participation’
PAGE 4 – ORDER
with Defendants, which he has not done.” (citations omitted)), report and recommendation
adopted, 2021 WL 1402220 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021).
For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the specific
relief requested by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for temporary
restraining order (ECF 12).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of October, 2024.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 5 – ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?