McDermott v. Potter et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 4 Motion for TRO; denying 5 Motion for Permanent Injunction by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. cc L McDermott (RS)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Because plaintiff appears to cite to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 governing preliminary injunctions, the Court interprets this pro se pleading as a motion for a preliminary injunction, not a motion for a permanent injunction. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LANCE P. McDERMOTT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN P. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant. No. C09-776RSL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, FCRP [sic] 65," Dkt. #4, and plaintiff's "Motion for Permanent Injunction, FCRP [sic] 65," Dkt. #5.1 Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO") to stop the United States Postal Service from closing the SeaTac Air Mail facility without due process, Dkt. #4 at 1, and an injunction to bar the Postal Service from "closing, consolidating or selling any facility without going through the lawful process and obtaining a Headquarters Approval to do so," Dkt.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

#5 at 1. In the Ninth Circuit, the standard for issuing a TRO is the same as the standard for preliminary injunction: a plaintiff "must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Plaintiff's motions each consist of a single sentence. He has provided nothing either in his motions or his complaint that would indicate he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for a TRO (Dkt. #4) and his motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. #5) are DENIED.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2009.

A

Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 2