Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02374/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02374-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDY MOULTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAN GJERDE, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor for the County of Mendocino,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-02374-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Brandy Moulton's Application, filed April 14, 2020, for a 

"Temporary Restraining Order and OSC re: Preliminary Injunction." Defendant Dan 

Gjerde has filed opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. Having read and considered 

the parties' respective written submissions, the Court rules as follows.1

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that, in February 2020, defendant, a county 

supervisor, "banned" her "from speaking in a public forum he had set up for constituents 

to interact with each other and with him about his actions as a local government official." 

(See Compl. ¶ 1.) The "public forum," according to plaintiff, is a "Facebook page which is 

currently titled 'Dan Gjerde, 4th District Supervisor.'" (See Compl. ¶ 11.) Based on said 

allegations, plaintiff alleges defendant has violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

By the instant application, plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting 

defendant from restricting plaintiff's access to the above-referenced Facebook page, as 

well as an order directing defendant to show cause why a preliminary injunction should 

1By order filed April 22, 2020, the Court advised the parties the matter would be 

taken under submission upon completion of the briefing.

Case 3:20-cv-02374-MMC Document 18 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not issue.

"Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to 

preliminary injunctions." Quiroga v. Chen, 735 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1228 (D. Nev. 2010). 

"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., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). As 

an alternative to showing a likelihood of success on the merits, however, a plaintiff may 

establish “that serious questions going to the merits [have been] raised,” provided such 

plaintiff also establishes “a balance of hardships that tips sharply toward the plaintiff,” a 

likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the injunction is in the public interest. See

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(internal quotation and citation omitted).

In her declaration, plaintiff states that "around February 22, 2020," she "voic[ed]" 

on the forum her concerns about defendant's "job performance" and that, "[s]hortly" 

thereafter, she was "blocked" from accessing the Facebook page. (See Moulton Decl.

¶¶ 11-12.) In his declaration, defendant states that, although he "blocked" plaintiff from 

the Facebook page "on or about February 19, 2020" (see Gjerde Decl. ¶ 15), he 

reinstated plaintiff's access "on either March 5, or March 6, 2020," when he "changed the 

settings" so that "no one" is blocked (see id. ¶ 11); he further declares plaintiff has had 

full access to the forum as of that time (see id. ¶¶ 11, 13). Plaintiff has not disputed 

defendant's declaration that, as of March 6, 2020, she has not been subject to any 

restriction limiting her access to or use of the Facebook page. Consequently, assuming 

plaintiff has a right to full access to the Facebook page, it is undisputed that, as of April 8, 

2020, the date on which plaintiff filed her complaint, she has not been deprived of any 

such right.

The Court next considers whether, under such circumstances, plaintiff has shown 

she has standing to seek an injunction. See O'Shea v. Sullivan, 414 U.S. 488, 493 

Case 3:20-cv-02374-MMC Document 18 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(1974) (holding district court cannot "assume jurisdiction" over claim for injunctive relief in 

absence of showing plaintiff has standing).

Where a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, such plaintiff, to have standing, must show

the existence of a "real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again," see

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983), a showing that cannot be based 

solely on "a past injury," see San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 

1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, plaintiff offers no evidence to support a finding that she 

faces an imminent or, for that matter, any future threat of being blocked again. Rather, 

she relies on defendant's past act of blocking, which conduct, as noted, is insufficient to 

establish standing. See id.

Accordingly, plaintiff's application is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-02374-MMC Document 18 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 3