Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO HOUSING & 

REDEVEOPMENT AGENCY, et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01699 DJC AC PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Pending before the undersigned is pro se plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining 

order (ECF No. 26). Based on the analysis below, the undersigned recommends that the motion 

be DENIED. 

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs, proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), filed 

this case on September 27, 2022. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the screening process associated with 

IFP status, their initial complaint was rejected and plaintiffs were given multiple opportunities to 

amend their complaint; ultimately plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was approved 

for service. ECF Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 (TAC). 

Defendants moved to dismiss on April 14, 2023. ECF No. 21. That motion is set to be 

heard on May 24, 2023. Id. On April 25, 2023, plaintiffs moved to file a Fourth Amended 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 27 Filed 05/03/23 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 

2 

Complaint. ECF No. 23. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), defendants’ response to that motion is 

due on May 8, 2023. On April 29, 2023, plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 25); per the local rule, defendants’ opposition to that motion is due on May 

15, 2023. Pending now is plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 26), 

which was brought on May 1, 2023. 

The operative Third Amended Complaint brings causes of action under Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, Sections 504 and 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 11 at 4. Plaintiffs allege that 

defendants have violated the laws with respect to their housing and their requested 

accommodations related to various disabilities. See generally, ECF No. 11. 

II. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

Under Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court may issue a temporary 

restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party” only if “specific facts in an 

affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Obtaining ex parte relief under Rule 65 is limited to situations where notice to 

the adverse party would likely prove useless. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 

1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing cases). 

The legal standards for obtaining a temporary restraining order are essentially identical to 

those for obtaining a preliminary injunction. See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant 

Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001); Lockheed Missile & Space 

Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “The sole purpose 

of a preliminary injunction is to ‘preserve the status quo ante litem pending a determination of the 

action on the merits.’” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

L.A. Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1980)). 

Here, plaintiffs have not articulated a legal or factual basis for a temporary restraining 

order. Plaintiffs argue that in the absence of a temporary restraining order they will “continue to 

suffer” the irreparable harm that they have been suffering for the past year, and that they will 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 27 Filed 05/03/23 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 

3 

“continue” to experience due process violations. ECF No. 26 at 5. Plaintiffs state that because of 

defendants’ actions related to their housing, they are “currently homeless.” ECF No. 26 at 6. 

Because the actions allegedly resulting in plaintiffs’ homelessness happened before the motion 

was filed, there is no anticipated action on the part of defendants for this court to “temporarily 

restrain” in order to “preserve the status quo” of plaintiffs’ housing situation. Thus, there is no 

basis for the court to issue a temporary restraining order at this juncture. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary 

restraining order (ECF No. 26) be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 

parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 3, 2023 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 27 Filed 05/03/23 Page 3 of 3