Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04675/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04675-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

FRED C. CARR, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-4675 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 

ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS OF DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al., IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court are the “ex parte” motion for preliminary injunction and the

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed by plaintiff Fred C. Carr, Jr.,

in the above-entitled action. The motions are DENIED for the following reasons, and the

May 26, 2010 hearing date is VACATED.

First, with regard to the motion for preliminary injunction, to the extent that plaintiff is

seeking an order re-adjudicating the issues on appeal, the filing of a notice of appeal

confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals at the same time it divests from the district court

its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Thus, the court no longer has jurisdiction

over the claims asserted in the amended complaint, as judgment was entered on

December 11, 2009, and plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 12, 2010. 

To the extent that plaintiff seeks an order with respect to the arbitration of his

grievance, that arbitration occurred well after plaintiff filed the notice of appeal, and any

claims concerning the arbitration are unrelated to the allegations in plaintiff’s amended

complaint. The court cannot adjudicate a motion for preliminary injunction if the motion is

not closely related to the facts, legal issues, and parties addressed in the plaintiff's

Case 4:09-cv-04675-PJH Document 64 Filed 05/20/10 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

complaint. See Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae, LLP v. Abraham, 180 F.Supp. 2d 65,

70 (D.D.C. 2001). 

In addition, plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirements for injunctive relief (and has, in

fact, made no effort to do so). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129

S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Here, as there is no cause of action in the amended complaint that

is related to the March 2010 arbitration, it would be impossible for plaintiff to show any

likelihood of success on the merits. 

Second, with regard to the IFP request, the court notes that the Ninth Circuit granted

plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP in his appeal of the dismissal of this action, on April 10,

2010. Accordingly, the present request is duplicative.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04675-PJH Document 64 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2