Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08160/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08160-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James M. Houston, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona State Board of Education, a

political sub-division of the State of

Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8160-PCT-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

Issued Without Notice Due to Impending Unconstitutional Action(s) to be Undertaken by

Defendants Leading to Additional Claims for Civil Rights Violations being Asserted by the

Plaintiff (Doc. 10). For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion. 

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claims that the Arizona State Board of Education

denied his civil rights by voting to deny him a teaching certification; in addition to filing the

instant lawsuit, Defendant has appealed the administrative action to the Superior Court, and,

after apparently having been denied relief there, is pursuing relief at the Arizona Court of

Appeals. Plaintiff now seeks a temporary restraining order without notice to prevent

Defendants from revoking his substitute teaching license and notifying other states of that

revocation.

/ / / 

Case 3:10-cv-08160-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/03/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

1. Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply With Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)

The first reason the temporary restraining order without notice will be denied is that

Plaintiff provides no specific facts in his affidavit accompanying the motion suggesting that

he will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage “before the adverse party can

be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (1). Further, the attorney must certify in

writing as to “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Plaintiff, has not said why he should be granted a TRO without

even permitting the Board of Education to challenge his claims, or why this Court should

take action before even advising the Board of Education of this request. He has not

established how, in the time prior to the December 6 hearing in which the Board of Education

might have responded to his allegation he would likely suffer immediate and irreparable

injury, loss or damage due to the action of the Board. The Board thus has had no adequate

opportunity to address Plaintiff’s claims because despite the pendency of his suit for several

months now, Plaintiff has not yet served any of the Defendants including the Board of

Education even with the underlying suit. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the entry of

a TRO without notice in this case. 

Second, in his motion for TRO, Plaintiff apparently acknowledges that he is appealing

the ruling already made by the Maricopa County Superior Court denying him relief on his

administrative appeal from the action of the Arizona Board of Education. He alleges that if

the Board is allowed to proceed in revoking his substitute teaching certificate it will only

necessitate further administrative appeals within the state court appellate system. Assuming

that such is true, as based on Plaintiff’s Motion it appears to be, this Court should abstain

from exercising any further jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado River

and/or the Younger abstention doctrines. These matters are being handled in the state

administrative and judicial systems and duplicate proceedings in a federal court system

would be contraindicated. 

Third, “the standard for issuing a [temporary restraining order] is the same as that for

issuing a preliminary injunction.” Phillips v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 2009 WL 4898259 at *1

Case 3:10-cv-08160-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/03/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

(D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2009) (citing Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. The Mind’s Eye Interiors, Inc.,

236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2007)). Therefore, a district court may grant a

preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order under two sets of circumstances.

Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009). First, a plaintiff must demonstrate:

“(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to

plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff,

and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” Id. (internal quotations

omitted). Alternatively, a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is

appropriate “if the plaintiff demonstrates either a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the

balance of the hardships tips sharply in [its] favor.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

In this case, Plaintiff does not set forth a basis, supported by evidence in an admissible

form, that establishes that it would likely be a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights for

the Defendants to revoke his substitute teaching certificate. Although Plaintiff has alleged

certain irregularities in the earlier Board of Education proceedings and their transcription,

he has not yet persuasively demonstrated, at least at this point in the proceedings, how those

irregularities result in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Many of Plaintiff’s assertions

about what amounts to a deprivation of his federal rights are unsupported, and appear to be

meritless. For example, Plaintiff’s assertion that “[i]t is axiomatic that [it is unconstitutional]

for the Defendants to utilize as the basis to pursue disciplinary action against the Plaintiff an

administrative decision that is under appellate review,” is both unsupported by authority and

unpersuasive, especially in absence of any legal citation supporting the assertion. Further,

as above-stated, Plaintiff has not served Defendants with his motion, nor has he justified why

they should not have an opportunity to respond to it prior to the entry of a preliminary

injunction. In the absence of a strong likelihood or probable success on the merits, or even

a serious questions about the merits of the case, Plaintiff does not qualify for a Temporary

Restraining Order Without Notice. 

Case 3:10-cv-08160-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/03/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order (Doc. 10) is DENIED. 

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08160-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/03/10 Page 4 of 4