Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00056/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN GAVIN,

Plaintiff, No. C 13-0056 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST,

DENYING TRO WITHOUT NOTICE, 

JOHN ARNTZ, et al. AND SETTING HEARING ON TRO

REQUEST IF NOTICE IS PROVIDED

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP request”),

along with plaintiff’s “ex parte application for an emergency temporary restraining order for

a preliminary injunction for the swearing in of Norman Yee for District 7 and permanent

injunction enjoining all defendants.” Plaintiff’s request was filed on the afternoon of January

4, 2013, and seeks to enjoin actions scheduled to occur on January 8, 2013. 

While plaintiff claims to be proceeding ex parte, she has not complied with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), which allows the issuance of a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”) without notice to the adverse parties 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,” and if the

movant “certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should

not be required.” Plaintiff has not complied with these requirements, and thus the court

cannot issue a TRO before the defendants receive notice of the TRO request. 

Because plaintiff is seeking to enjoin actions scheduled to occur only four days from

today (on January 8, 2013), any hearing on plaintiff’s TRO request would need to be

scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2013. While the court has reviewed plaintiff’s IFP

request, and finds that plaintiff does qualify for IFP status, the U.S. Marshals will not be

Case 4:13-cv-00056-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

able to serve plaintiff’s TRO request (which was filed this afternoon) before Monday. 

Because plaintiff’s IFP request is GRANTED, however, the U.S. Marshals will still effect

service of the complaint itself. 

If plaintiff intends to proceed with her TRO request, she must effect service of the

request on all defendants before Monday, January 7, 2013. If plaintiff is able to serve the

TRO request on defendants by January 7, and files proofs of service with the Clerk’s office

before 9:00am on January 7, then the court will conduct a hearing on plaintiff’s TRO

request on Monday, January 7, at 10:00am. However, because plaintiff’s request was

received late in the day, this order is being filed after the close of business hours, and the

court recognizes that it is unlikely that plaintiff (who is proceeding pro se, and does not

receive electronic notice of court orders) will receive notice of this order in time to effect

service of the TRO request before Monday. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-00056-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2