Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01685/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01685-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 25:1901 Indian Child Welfare Act

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EFRIM RENTERIA, TALISHA 

RENTERIA, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF 

MIWOK INDIANS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1685-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

On July 22, 2016, the Court granted Plantiffs Efrim and Talisha Renteria’s 

(“Plaintiffs”) Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 18. The Court’s 

Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) appointed Plaintiffs as temporary guardians of the 

three minor children (“Subject Minors”) who are the subject of this action and enjoined 

enforcement of the June 3, 2016 Order Appointing Guardian of Minors issued by 

Defendant Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians Tribal Court (“Tribal Court”). Id.; ECF 

No. 19. The Court also set a hearing for July 28, 2016 to determine whether a 

preliminary injunction should issue pending a trial on the merits. Id. That hearing was 

eventually continued to August 31, 2016. ECF No. 43. 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:16-cv-01685-MCE-AC Document 49 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

2

On August 3, 2016, the Tribal Court held a hearing to consider a motion filed by 

Defendant Regina Cuellar seeking the return of the Subject Minors to her care and 

custody. ECF No. 47-1 at 3. Plaintiffs were not present at the hearing. Id. Thereafter, 

the Court issued an order (“August 11 Order”) requiring all parties to appear in the Tribal 

Court on August 24, 2016 to consider visitation. Id. at 4. The Tribal Court also denied 

Plaintiffs’ request for the audio files of the hearings that are the subject of their due 

process challenge in this action. Id. 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Application for a Supplemental Temporary 

Restraining Order. ECF No. 47. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (1) find that the 

Tribal Court’s August 11 Order violates the TRO currently in effect; (2) clarify that 

Plaintiffs are released from complying with the August 11 Order; (3) require Defendants 

to deposit all recordings of hearings regarding the subject minors and all other records 

filed with the Tribal Court regarding the subject minors since June 1, 2016; and (4) enjoin 

the Tribal Court from holding further hearings on custody and visitation regarding the 

Subject Minors until this Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF 

No. 47 at 6-7. 

Plaintiffs’ Application is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.1

 

Local Rule 231(a) provides that a temporary restraining order will not be granted, except 

in the most extraordinary of circumstances, “absent actual notice to the affected party 

and/or counsel.” Furthermore, Local Rule 231(c) requires an applicant for a temporary 

restraining order to provide certain documents to the Court and to the opposing parties 

and their counsel. Pertinently, those documents include: 

(3) a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the 

motion; 

/// 

/// 

 1

 All further references to “Local Rule” or “Local Rules” are to the Local Rules of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

Case 2:16-cv-01685-MCE-AC Document 49 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

(4) an affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable 

injury; 

(5) an affidavit detailing the notice or efforts to effect notice to 

the affected parties or counsel or showing good cause why 

notice should not be given, see L.R. 142; 

(6) a proposed temporary restraining order with a provision 

for a bond, see L.R. 151; [and] 

(7) a proposed order with blanks for fixing the time and date 

for hearing a motion for preliminary injunction, the date for the 

filing of responsive papers, the amount of the bond, if any, 

and the date and hour of issuance[.] 

Plaintiffs have filed no affidavits explaining how the August 11 Order would result in 

irreparable injury to them, no affidavit detailing their efforts to effect notice to the affected 

parties or counsel, and no proposed temporary restraining order with the information 

required by Local Rule 230(c)(6)-(7). 

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ brief in support of their pending Application is inadequate. 

In their Oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants have 

raised arguments about the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims and the Court’s jurisdiction to 

hear them. See generally, ECF No. 30; ECF No. 32. Of specific interest to the Court are 

Defendants’ arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution does not apply to Tribal Court proceedings, that the only avenue for 

Plaintiffs to challenge the Tribal Court’s proceedings for lack of due process is under the 

Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), and that the only method for obtaining relief under the 

ICRA is by a writ of habeas corpus. Id. Those legal arguments are highly relevant to the 

issues presented in the pending Application, but Plaintiffs fail to address them. In light of 

Defendants’ unaddressed jurisdictional arguments and Plaintiffs’ failure to discuss the 

harm they might suffer if the Court does not issue a Supplemental TRO, the Court 

declines to issue further injunctive relief until the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction has been heard and the Court has an opportunity to make an informed, 

threshold determination about its jurisdiction over this action. 

/// 

Case 2:16-cv-01685-MCE-AC Document 49 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Application for a Supplemental Temporary Restraining 

Order (ECF No. 47) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiffs should address 

Defendants’ legal arguments concerning this Court’s jurisdiction and Defendants’ 

immunity from suit if they choose to refile their current Application. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 24, 2016 

 

Case 2:16-cv-01685-MCE-AC Document 49 Filed 08/24/16 Page 4 of 4