Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01791/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01791-0/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

- 1 - 08cv1791w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES S. LAKNER,

Plaintiff, 

CASE NO: 08-CV-1791 W (CAB)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

v.

LEWIS BALKE, et al.,

Defendants.

On October 1, 2008, Plaintiff James S. Lakner filed this civil rights lawsuit against

Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”). 

It appears that the Motion was not served on Defendants, and accordingly Plaintiff

seeks an ex parte TRO. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the

Motion without prejudice.

Case 3:08-cv-01791-W-CAB Document 4 Filed 10/02/08 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 - 08cv1791w

I. Factual Background.

Plaintiff’s residence was burned down in the October 2003 Cedar Fire. (Mot.,

p.1.) Twice in 2006 and four times in 2007, Plaintiff submitted plans to the County

Building Department to rebuild his home. (Id., p.2.) Each time, the plans were rejected

because his property was “red flagged” by the zoning department. (Id.) 

In 2006, the County Zoning Department cited Plaintiff for a solid waste

nuisance. (Id.) Plaintiff was able to defeat the citation at an administrative agency

appeal hearing, but Plaintiff was unable to get the red flag removed. (Id.) 

Beginning in 2007, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants began a campaign to unjustly

issue citations to Plaintiff in order to justify an abatement action. (Id. pp.3–5; Compl.

pp.3–6.) These actions included Defendants’ ordering SDG&E to disconnect electrical

services to Plaintiff’s residence on June 4, 2008. (Compl. p.3.) As a result of losing

electrical services, Plaintiff alleges he is forced to use gasoline generators at a monthly

cost of approximately $1100. (Id.)

Based on these actions, on October 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging

that the Defendants violated a number of Plaintiff’s civil rights, including property

rights, rights of accused, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of

speech. (Id. p.3.) Plaintiff further alleges equal protection and due process violations. 

(Id. pp.4–5.)

Along with the complaint, Plaintiff also filed the pending Motion seeking a TRO. 

There is no indication that either the Motion or Complaint have been served on

Defendants.

II. Discussion.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outline the procedures a federal court must

follow when deciding whether to grant a temporary restraining order. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

65. The standard for granting a temporary restraining order is the same for entering a

preliminary injunction. Bronco Wine Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 997 F. Supp. 1309,

Case 3:08-cv-01791-W-CAB Document 4 Filed 10/02/08 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

1

If Plaintiff wants to pursue a motion for a preliminary injunction, he must first serve

Defendants with the summons, Complaint and preliminary injunction motion. Additionally, this

Court’s local rules require the Plaintiff to contact the Court’s law clerk in order to obtain a hearing

date for the preliminary injunction motion, before the motion is filed. (See Civ.L.R. 7.1(b).)

- 3 - 08cv1791w

1313 (E.D. Cal. 1996); Franklin v. Scribner, Civil No. 07-0438 BTM (LSP), 2007 WL

1491100, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2007). The Ninth Circuit has prescribed the

following equitable criteria for determining whether to grant injunctive relief:

(1) the likelihood of the moving party’s success on the merits; (2) the

possibility of irreparable injury to the moving party if relief is not granted;

(3) the extent to which the balance of hardships favors the respective

parties; and (4) in certain cases, whether the public interest will be

advanced by granting the preliminary relief. The moving party must show

either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) the existence of serious questions

going to the merits, the balance of hardships tipping sharply in its favor,

and at least a fair chance of success on the merits... [T]he required degree

of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases. 

Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. Swift Transp. Co., 367 F.3d 1108, 1111

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Miller ex. rel. N.L.R.B. v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 456

(9th Cir. 1994)). The temporary restraining order “should be restricted to serving [its]

underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so

long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.

Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974);

accord L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200

(9th Cir. 1980); Del Toro-Chacon v. Chertoff, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1139-40 (W.D.

Wash. 2006). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of the elements necessary to obtain an ex

parte TRO. First, although being forced from one’s home may constitute irreparable

harm, there is simply no indication in the Motion or Complaint that Plaintiff’s removal

from his property is imminent. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to justify seeking a

TRO, particularly on an ex parte basis.1

Case 3:08-cv-01791-W-CAB Document 4 Filed 10/02/08 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 - 08cv1791w

Second, Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on his claims. 

In the Motion, Plaintiff simply alleges that “Defendant’s have violated several of

Plaintiff’s rights and he is confident that he will eventually prevail on the merits of this

case.” (Mot. p.6.) This conclusory statement is insufficient. Rather, Plaintiff must

identify the legal standards for each claim included in his complaint and applying the

facts to law, demonstrate why he will prevail. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

III. Conclusion & Order.

Because Plaintiff has failed to establish imminent irreparable injury and a

likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for a TRO is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 2, 2008

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01791-W-CAB Document 4 Filed 10/02/08 Page 4 of 4