Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02315/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02315-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure 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 

DENNIS D. MURPHY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;

THOMAS TIDWELL, in his 

official capacity as Chief of 

the United States Forest 

Service; NANCY J. GIBSON, in 

her official capacity as 

Forest Supervisor of the 

United States Forest 

Service, 

Defendant. 

2:13-cv-02315-GEB-AC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

On Thursday, November 14, 2013, at approximately 6:00 

p.m., Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

(“TRO”) to “enjoin the Upper Echo Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction 

Project,” (“Project”) (Pl.’s Notice of Mot. 1:6-7, ECF No. 8), 

which the Forest Service commenced on September 30, 2013. (Compl. 

¶ 27.) Plaintiff asserts it should be scheduled for hearing on 

Monday, November 18, 2013. 

As prescribed in Local Rule 231(b): 

Timing of Motion. In considering a motion for 

a temporary restraining order, the Court will 

consider whether the applicant could have 

sought relief by motion for preliminary 

injunction at an earlier date without the 

necessity for seeking last-minute relief by 

motion for temporary restraining order. 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/15/13 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 

Should the Court find that the applicant 

unduly delayed in seeking injunctive relief, 

the Court may conclude that the delay 

constitutes laches or contradicts the 

applicant's allegations of irreparable injury 

and may deny the motion solely on either 

ground. 

Here, Plaintiff alleges: “On November 15, 2012, the 

Forest Service issued a decision memo in which the agency 

indicated its determination to implement the Upper Echo Lakes 

project.” (Compl. ¶ 26.) Moreover, Plaintiff avers that he wrote 

“letters to the Forest Service outlining a variety of concerns 

with the Project on July 22 and August 21, 2013.” (Decl. of 

Dennis D. Murphy, Ph.D 3:7-8, ECF No. 8-2). Plaintiff also 

alleges, “On September 30, 2013, the Forest Service commenced the 

Project over [his] objections,” suspended the Project “[d]ue to a 

federal government shutdown,” and “resumed [the Project] sometime 

after the shutdown ended on October 16, 2013, but before October 

22, 2013.” (Compl. ¶ 27.) 

Plaintiff provides no explanation concerning why he 

waited over one month after work on the project commenced to file 

his motion for a TRO, which he expects to be scheduled for 

hearing in virtually one business day. Since Plaintiff has not 

provided sufficient explanation concerning why he “could [not] 

have sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction at an 

earlier [or future] date without the necessity for seeking lastminute relief by motion for temporary restraining order,” Local 

R. 231(b), the TRO is denied on “procedural grounds alone,” and 

it is “unnecessary to address the substantive issues” of 

Plaintiff’s motion at this time. Jameson Beach Prop. Owners' 

Ass’n v. United States, 2:13-CV-01025-MCE-AC, 2013 WL 2297067, at 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/15/13 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 

*4

Da

 (E.D. C

ated: No

al. May 

vember 1

24, 2013

5, 2013

3

). 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/15/13 Page 3 of 3