Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02620/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02620-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MAXEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

UNITED KINGDOM, INDIA, ET AL.

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2620 TLN DAD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to James Maxey’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, filed 

with the Court on December 18, 2013. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. After 

reviewing the document, it appears that Plaintiff intended this document to also serve as a motion 

for a temporary restraining order. Specifically, Plaintiff “petitions this Court for an emergency 

court hearing to compel the Defendants to cease and desist the unwarranted 24 hour surveillance, 

human, civil and privacy rights violations.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a litany of offenses including: human rights violations, civil 

rights violations, privacy rights violations, medical malpractice, medical fraud, defamation, 

intentional infliction of distress, coercion, undue influence, blackmail, physical assault, attempted 

murder, false arrest, false conviction, false imprisonment, due process violations, conspiracy, 

negligence, and breach of contract. (See ECF No. 1.) These numerous alleged violations are only 

Case 2:13-cv-02620-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 2
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

exceeded by the number of defendants that Plaintiff has brought these claims against, which 

include: the United States of America, United Kingdom, India, the State of California, Sierra 

College, Sacramento Kings Professional Basketball Inc., Kaiser Permanente/Foundation Hospital, 

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Halliburton U.S.A. Inc., Siemens U.S.A. Inc., Valero 

Gasoline Inc., Chevron Gasoline Inc., Bel Air Supermarkets Inc., Raley’s Supermarkets Inc., 

Sacramento River Cats Baseball Team Inc., Chevron Gasoline Inc., California Highway Patrol 

and Sacramento City Police Department. The Complaint’s recitation of allegations concerning 

numerous defendants makes it difficult for the Court to ascertain the exact parties and behavior 

that Plaintiff is seeking relief from.

To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the moving party must demonstrate (1) a 

probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that the lawsuit 

raises serious questions and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the movant's favor. See 

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1986); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. 

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 65. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520–21 (1972), they are not immune from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff’s convoluted enumeration of claims does not come close to meeting this burden. 

Plaintiff has failed to clearly articulate the parties and the behavior that he is seeking injunctive 

relief from. Furthermore, he has failed to show a probability of success on the merits, a 

possibility of irreparable harm, or that this lawsuit raises serious questions of public interest with

the balance of hardship tipping in his favor. As such, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s 

motion for a temporary restraining order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-02620-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 2