Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01244/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01244-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HUCUL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SYLVIA MATHEW-BURWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

(ECF No. 124)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Hucul’s Motion to Grant a Temporary 

Injunction During the Appeal Process Pursuant to Rule 62(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 8. (“PI App. Mot.”, ECF No. 124.) After considering Plaintiff’s arguments and 

the law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(c) allows a party to move the district 

court to issue, among other things, injunctive relief pending an appeal. However, the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern only the procedures in the courts of appeal. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 1. In addition, “[w]hen these rules provide for filing a motion or other 

document in the district court, the procedure must comply with the practice of the district 

court.” Fed. R. App. P. 1(a)(2). Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one under 

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01244-JLS-DHB Document 125 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), which allows a district court to grant an injunction 

pending appeal “from . . . [a] final judgment that . . . denies an injunction . . . .”

“Like any injunction, an injunction pending appeal is ‘an extraordinary remedy that 

should be granted sparingly.’” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1207 

(E.D. Cal. 2010). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citing 

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008)); see also Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City 

of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d at 1207. In the Ninth 

Circuit, “serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply 

towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the 

plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is 

in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding that this “sliding scale” approach 

survives after the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter). This is an “extraordinary remedy 

that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. To warrant injunctive relief, irreparable injury must be more than 

merely possible. See Midgett v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846, 850 

(9th Cir. 2001). Rather, the plaintiff must show “that he faces a real or immediate threat” 

that he will suffer irreparable harm. Id. Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction carry a 

particularly “heavy burden” of proving their entitlement to it. Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 

626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Munaf, 553 U.S. at 689 (“A preliminary 

injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy.’”).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01244-JLS-DHB Document 125 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

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

ANALYSIS

On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit against over thirty Defendants for alleged 

injuries stemming from various events in a family court case beginning in Michigan and 

continuing to California, where it is currently pending in San Diego. (See Compl. 29,1 ECF 

No. 1.) Several Defendants filed motions to dismiss, (see ECF Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 

33, 43, 48, 51, 59, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83), and the Court granted these motions and dismissed 

Plaintiff’s case with prejudice, (see MTD Order, ECF No. 118). The Clerk of Court entered 

judgment against Plaintiff and closed the case. (ECF No. 119.) Plaintiff subsequently 

appealed the Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, where it remains pending. (ECF Nos. 

120, 121, 122, 123.)

Plaintiff now moves the Court for an injunction. Specifically, during the pendency 

of his Ninth Circuit appeal, Plaintiff seeks “a temporary injunction against the State of 

California, the County of San Diego and their Department of Child Support Services from 

suspending Mr. Hucul’s brokers license, his passport, confiscating any of Mr. Hucul’s 

property including IRS or State of California tax returns and from making reports to any 

credit reporting agencies.” (PI App. Mot. 11, ECF No. 124.)

Plaintiff’s motion fails. To the extent his request is premised on the claims of his 

initial complaint, which appears to be the case, (see id. at 4–9), the Court finds that, 

consistent with its Order dismissing Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the 

merits of those claims. (See generally MTD Order, ECF No. 118 (assessing Plaintiff’s 

claims and dismissing them with prejudice).) Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate that there are 

at least serious questions going to the merits of his case. These failures are fatal to 

Plaintiff’s request. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1135. And Plaintiff

fails to discuss the other Winter factors required for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pending appeal.

 

1 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:16-cv-01244-JLS-DHB Document 125 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB)

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction 

pending appeal (ECF No. 124).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01244-JLS-DHB Document 125 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4