Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00826-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERMANY DEVON THOMAS,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FRESNO CITY COLLEGE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00826 LJO BAM

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

(Doc. 6) 

Jermany Devon Thomas (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

action on June 1, 2015 against Fresno City College and various individuals (“Defendants”). Doc. 1. On 

August 3, 2015, the Court received a document entitled “Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, 

Prohibitory and Permanent Injunctions, and Damages.” Doc. 6. To the extent this document may be

construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), any such motion is DENIED for the 

reasons set forth below, as the requirements for a TRO have not been established. 

A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief, such as a TRO, “must establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 

Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). In addition, a motion for a 

TRO is also subject to Eastern District of California Local Rule 231, which provides, among other 

things: 

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. 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/07/15 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

2

applicant's allegations of irreparable injury and may deny the motion 

solely on either ground.

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(b). In addition, the moving party is required to provide, among other things “a 

brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion;” and “an affidavit in support of the existence 

of an irreparable injury.” E.D. Cal. Local rule 231(c). 

Although the factual underpinnings of Plaintiff’s allegations are not entirely clear, the Complaint 

in this case appears to concern a May 1, 2014 internal complaint Plaintiff filed against Defendant Fresno 

City College. Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendants failed to comply with internal 

procedures by delaying their response to the internal complaint. Id. Plaintiff also mentions the filing of 

another internal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights on February 6, 2015. Id. at 3. Plaintiff makes 

passing references to acts of discrimination and a hostile learning environment, but sets forth no 

specifics regarding either the acts of Defendants or the timing of those acts. Id. at 2-3. Nowhere in either 

the Complaint or his August 3, 2015 filing does Plaintiff explain how he is likely to succeed on the 

merits of his claims; how the extraordinary relief of a TRO will prevent irreparable injury to him; or 

why, even assuming, arguendo, irreparable injury is ongoing, he could not have sought emergency relief 

at an earlier date. Therefore, the Court finds no basis for the issuance of a TRO.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

To the extent Plaintiff’s August 3, 2015 filing may be construed as a request for a TRO, any such 

motion is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge shall proceed to screen the complaint according to normal 

procedures applicable to in forma pauperis cases. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00826-DAD-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 2