Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02891/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02891-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Gordon Daniels,

Plaintiff,

v.

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, 

Defendant.

CV 06-2891-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Injunction Issues

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO")

and Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("PI") (Doc. #28). Currently, Plaintiff is employed by

Defendant (Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration) as a

security screener at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Plaintiff seeks an injunction for the duration

of this case to prevent Defendant from: (1) accumulating a paper trail against him, (2)

monitoring his breaks, (3) denying Plaintiff from working inside and taking breaks, and (4)

harassing Plaintiff.

To obtain a TRO or PI, the moving party must show: 1) a strong likelihood of success on

the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable injury to the moving party if injunctive relief is not

granted, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the moving party, and 4) advancement of the public

interest (in cases implicating the public interest). Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Service,

351 F.3d 1291, 1297 (9th Cir. 2003). The moving party may meet this burden by showing either:

(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable injury, or (2)

Case 2:06-cv-02891-JAT Document 38 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Court having decided that the injunction requests should be denied for the reasons

stated above, the Court has not reached Defendant's other arguments as to why the injunction

requests should be denied such as safety and security issues and likelihood of success on the

merits issues.

2

the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips

sharply in its favor. Id. at 1298.

Defendant has responded to the motion (Doc. #29). In its response, Defendant

acknowledged the general rule that a TRO or PI is an extraordinary remedy that is not issued as

a matter of course. See Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987);

Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 966 F.2d 1292, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992).

Defendant went on to argue why Plaintiff's requested relief should not be granted based on each

prong of the TRO/PI standard listed above. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Turning to the last prong of the test first, Plaintiff must show a possibility of irreparable

injury or (depending on his likelihood of success) that the balance of hardships tips in his favor.

See Earth Island Institute, 351 F.3d at 1297-98. The Government argues and this Court agrees

that none of Plaintiff's alleged harms can show either irrparable injury or that the balance of

hardships tips in his favor. Plaintiff cannot meet either test because all relief sought by Plaintiff

(if he ultimately prevails) can be remedied by monetary damages. See Anderson v. United

States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 1979) ("If one can be compensated in back pay, a

preliminary injunction should not issue."). Thus, the Court will deny both requests for injunctive

relief.1

 

Discovery Issues

Plaintiff has also filed something called "memo to the court" in which he requests

clarification regarding a potential motion to compel. Such clarification is granted to the limited

extent that Plaintiff is advised that all discovery disputes, including motions to compel, must first

be brought to the Court via a conference call between the parties as required by the Rule 16

scheduling order. At such conference, a party may seek to file a written motion (which may or

Case 2:06-cv-02891-JAT Document 38 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #30) remains pending.

3

may not be granted). There having been no conference call in this case, Plaintiff's request to file

a motion to compel is denied.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary

Injunction (Doc. #28) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for clarification/motion to compel

(Doc. #35) is granted in part and denied in part as indicated above.2

 

DATED this 14th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02891-JAT Document 38 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 3