Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08048/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08048-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLADAPO OLAJIDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 19-08048 WHA 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER

Following dismissal of the first complaint, motion for temporary restraining order, and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis for frivolity (Dkt. No. 8), plaintiff returns with an 

amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) and new motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 

12), having paid the filing fee. Plaintiff’s new complaint largely repeats the earlier frivolity, 

but generously read, does allege police mistreatment after a June 2017 traffic stop (Dkt. No. 11 

at 4–6). “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. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). That the only alleged mistreatment is over two years 

ago undercuts a current likelihood of irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary 

restraining order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-08048-WHA Document 15 Filed 12/24/19 Page 1 of 1