Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05361-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

In the “Original Petition,” filed with the application for a temporary

restraining order, Plaintiff names as Defendants what appear to be a number of television

stations.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

2 NBC, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-05361 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER, DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

AND DISMISSING WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the application for a

temporary restraining order and an application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff

Charles Muhammad. Defendants have not yet been served, however, it appears that Plaintiff

seeks additional time to give them notice of these proceedings. (See Application for Temporary

Restraining Order at 5.)

Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order is a form document that is

entitled “Request for Restraining order, and Order of Protection.” In that application, Plaintiff

states that he seeks relief from “2 N.B.C, et al.”1 Plaintiff asks for orders requiring Defendants

to “not to do the following things to” to him: “harass, attack, strike, threaten, assault ... hit,

follow, stalk, molest, destroy, personal property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance, or

block movements.” He also asks that “all program directors be charged with criminal charges if

any staff cause fear or distress.” Finally, he states that the “most recent abuse” occurred on or

Case 3:06-cv-05361-JSW Document 5 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

about June 25, 2006, and recounts facts relating to this alleged abuse, although these allegations

are disjointed to the point of being incoherent and unintelligible.

Courts must deny in forma pauperis applications under certain circumstances, including

when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In contravention of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff failed to file a pleading setting forth the grounds upon which this

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. This Rule requires “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, . . . and a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Instead, the document that the

Court construes as Plaintiff’s complaint, entitled “Original Petition,” alleges, without factual

support, that the Defendants violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to

the United States Constitution. Further, as noted, although he has set forth certain factual

allegations in his application for a temporary restraining order, those facts are disjointed and

incoherent and do not make clear how Defendants violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and

Eighth Amendments. 

To obtain a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff, as the moving party, has the burden of

demonstrating either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury or that serious questions exist as to success on the merits and irreparable

injury along with a sharp tipping of the balance of hardships in his favor. Sammartano v. First

Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2003). “Because injunctive relief prior to

trial is a harsh and extraordinary remedy, it is to be granted sparingly and only in cases where

the issues are clear and well defined and the plaintiff has established a reasonable certainty of

prevailing at trial.” Watermark, Inc. v. United Stations, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. 31, 32-33 (C.D. Cal.

1982) (citing Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1964)). On the

record currently before the Court, it cannot find that Plaintiff has met his burden of showing

either a probable success on the merits or the possibility of immediate irreparable injury. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 

His application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the

Case 3:06-cv-05361-JSW Document 5 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this

action, he must file an amended complaint that sets forth the basis of this Courts jurisdiction and

which also sets forth a cognizable legal claim, as well as a renewed application to proceed in

forma pauperis by September 15, 2006. Failure to file a cognizable legal claim by this date

shall result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains helpful

information about proceeding without an attorney, is available through the Court’s website or in

the Clerk’s office. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05361-JSW Document 5 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 3