Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00499/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00499-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENT A. FRIEDE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEEPAR PRASAK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-00499-KJM-GGH PS

ORDER 

Pro se plaintiff is a disabled veteran facing potential eviction. On March 8, 2017, 

he filed this action in federal court, with reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

as the basis for federal jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Two days later, the complaint was dismissed 

while providing 30 days to amend, because the original complaint pled no plausible ADA claim. 

Order March 10, 2017, ECF No. 3. On March 13, 2017, plaintiff moved for a temporary 

restraining order (TRO) asking the court to block his eviction and overturn a state court decision. 

ECF No. 4. As discussed below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice. 

The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to that of a preliminary injunction and 

requires that the party seeking the TRO show either “(1) a combination of likelihood of success 

on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions going to the 

merits are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the moving party.” 

Case 2:17-cv-00499-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 03/14/17 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

Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. County of Fed’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that a court may issue a TRO without 

notice to the adverse party in limited circumstances where “specific facts in an affidavit or a 

verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result 

to the movant....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The movant must also certify in writing any 

efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

65(b)(1)(B). 

Here, plaintiff’s TRO motion cannot succeed because there is no operative 

complaint before the court and plaintiff’s motion does not comply with Rule 65’s notice 

requirement. Determining whether to issue a TRO depends on analyzing the underlying claims 

plaintiff’s complaint raises. Immigrant Assistance Project, 306 F.3d at 873. Plaintiff has not yet 

filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 3. Thus, there is no complaint against which to assess the 

appropriateness of a TRO. Even if there were a complaint before the court, plaintiff has not 

certified in writing any efforts to put defendant on notice of his ex parte TRO motion, nor has he 

offered any reason why the court should not require notice. See generally ECF No. 4. Very few 

circumstances justify issuing a TRO without notice to the adversary, particularly where such 

notice is possible. Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, the court DENIES the motion, without prejudice to refiling with 

correction of the deficiencies noted above. 

This order resolves ECF No. 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 14, 2017. 

Case 2:17-cv-00499-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 2