Harris v. Santos

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DAVID D. HARRIS, CDCR #P-54352, Case No.: 25-CV-284 JLS (DDL) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 DR. MICHAEL SANTOS, OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 15 Defendant. ORDER [16] (ECF No. 8) [17] 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff David D. Harris’s Motion for Preliminary 19 Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (“Mot.,” ECF No. 8). Having carefully 20 considered Plaintiff’s filings and the applicable law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 21 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) governs the issuance of a temporary 23 restraining order (“TRO”). The standard for a TRO is identical to the standard for a 24 preliminary injunction. Frontline Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Coventry Healthcare Worker’s 25 Comp., Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2009). A plaintiff seeking preliminary 26 relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to 27 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities 28 tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. 1 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy 2 that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief” 3 and is “never awarded as a matter of right.” Id. at 22, 24 . “Because it is a threshold inquiry, 4 when a plaintiff has failed to show the likelihood of success on the merits, [the court] need 5 not consider the remaining three [Winter elements].” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 , 6 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citing Ass’n des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec 7 v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 944 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 When a plaintiff has not provided notice of his application to the defendant, Federal 9 Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) imposes specific requirements prior to the issuance of a 10 TRO. Namely: 11 The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: [12] (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly 13 show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in [14] opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any 15 efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. [16] 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). “The stringent restrictions imposed . . . by Rule 65[] on the 18 availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire 19 jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and 20 an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, 21 Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 , 438–39 (1974) (footnote omitted). 22 Accordingly, “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the 23 issuance of an ex parte TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 , 1131 24 (9th Cir. 2006). “For example, an ex parte TRO may be appropriate ‘where notice to the 25 adverse party is impossible either because the identity of the adverse party is unknown or 26 because a known party cannot be located in time for a hearing.’” Id. (quoting Am. Can Co. 27 v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 322 (7th Cir. 1984)). Alternatively, “[i]n cases where notice 28 could have been given to the adverse party, courts have recognized a very narrow band of 1 ||cases in which ex parte orders are proper because notice to the defendant would render 2 || fruitless the further prosecution of the action.’” Jd. (quoting Am. Can Co., 742 F.3d at 322). 3 Plaintiff has not complied with the stringent notice requirements of Federal Rule of 4 || Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) for issuance of an ex parte TRO. Although Plaintiff's Complaint 5 || did indeed survive screening, see ECF No. 6, the summons that issued that same day still 6 ||has not been served on Defendant, see generally Docket. Nor has Plaintiff certified in 7 || writing why emergency relief is warranted at this time before written or oral notice can be 8 || afforded to Defendant. Further, a preliminary injunction is likewise not warranted because 9 preliminary injunction may issue “only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 65(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 8) WITHOUT 11 |} PREJUDICE to Plaintiff re-moving for injunctive relief at the appropriate time. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 |[Dated: May 9, 2025 (ee 14 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge