You're viewing Docket Item 6 from the case (PS) Fitzpatrick et al v. Miller et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:





Case 2:13-cv-01934-JAM-CMK Document 6 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 3

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
27
28












UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT MICHAEL FITZPATRICK and LISA
MARIE GILSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 2:13-cv-01934 JAM-CMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

STACEY A. MILLER, in her individual
and official capacities; FREDERIC S.
DAVIDSON, in his individual and
official capacities; SUSAN PEARL-
GEISLING, in her individual and
official capacities; THOMAS F.
GILMAN, in his individual and
official capacities; SCOTT THRUSHMAN,
in his individual and official
capacities; SANDRA L. MCLEAN, in her
individual and official capacities;
and DIANE MOREAU, in her individual
and official capacities, and JOHN DOE
1-10, Inclusive, in his individual
and official capacities,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Scott Michael
Fitzpatrick and Lisa Marie Gislon’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to stop
Defendants from disturbing Plaintiffs’ possession of their
automobile. (Doc. #2 at ¶ 77).1 Defendants Stacey A. Miller;

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). No hearing was scheduled.

1






Case 2:13-cv-01934-JAM-CMK Document 6 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 3

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
27
28



Frederic S. Davidson, Susan Pearl-Geisling, Thomas F. Gilman;
Scott Thrushman, Sandra L. McLean, and Diane Moreau (collectively
“Defendants”) did not have an opportunity to file an opposition.
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the TRO
application.



I.

OPINION

Legal Standard

A.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 provides authority to
issue either preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining
orders. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
demonstrate that it is “[1] likely to succeed on the merits,
[2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in
his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129
S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). The requirements for a temporary
restraining order are the same. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v.
John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A
TRO is an emergency measure, intended to preserve the status quo
pending a fuller hearing on the injunctive relief requested, and
the irreparable harm must therefore be clearly immediate. Fed.
R. Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1).

Analysis

B.
Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ TRO Application as well as the

materials submitted in support, the Court concludes that
Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the procedural requirements

2








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
27
28


Case 2:13-cv-01934-JAM-CMK Document 6 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 3

necessary to justify the issuance of an ex parte TRO.
Specifically, Plaintiffs have not certified in writing any
efforts made to put Defendants on notice of their ex parte motion
for a TRO, nor have they offered any reason why they should not
be required to provide notice, as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65.

In addition, Plaintiffs are attempting to enjoin an ongoing

state court action that is before Judge Sandra McLean. See
Compl. ¶¶ 11, 23, 70, 73. However, pursuant to the Anti–
Injunction Act (“AIA”), the Court cannot issue this injunctive
relief. The AIA forbids a federal court from enjoining or
staying state court proceedings “except as expressly authorized
by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28
U.S.C. § 2283. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any of the
exceptions to the AIA apply here.

Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood of
success on the underlying claims in the complaint. For example,
claims against Defendant McLean are entitled to absolute judicial
immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978).



II. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2013






3