Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02535/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02535-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ISABEL VELIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMADOR COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-2535-DJC-CKD 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Isabel Velia, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint along with the 

present Motion for “Emergency Stay Order On All County/State Orders Pending 

Constitutional Question/Violation Hearing.” (Mot. (ECF No. 3).) The Court construes 

this to be a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. (Mot. 

(ECF No. 3).) In order to obtain a preliminary injunctive relief, a party must establish 

that they satisfy each of the Winter factors: (1) that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits; (2) that the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff’s favor; and (4) 

that granting injunctive relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resource 

Defense Counsel Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

Plaintiff’s Motion does not meet any of the factors required by Winter. The 

motion is brief. Plaintiff states that there is a county abatement “along with various 

Case 2:24-cv-02535-DJC-CKD Document 4 Filed 09/20/24 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 

2 

other liens, injunctions, [and] orders” against a piece of property that is “preventing us 

from gathering and praying.” (Mot. at 1–2.) Plaintiff also claims that state and county 

orders have violated their Constitutional right to freedom of religion by “interfering 

with our right to worship, pray and utilize or land with shelter [and] coverings for 

prayer.” (Id.) Nothing in the motion establishes Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits or that Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed without preliminary injunctive relief. 

Plaintiff also makes no showing on the balance of equities or that granting such an 

order would be in the public interest. 

Even looking to Plaintiff’s Complaint for insight as to Plaintiff’s likelihood of 

success on the merits, it is not clear that Plaintiff’s claims will even pass the screening 

stage of these proceedings as currently presented.1 Many of Plaintiff’s stated claims 

are based on criminal statutes which do not typically provide a private civil cause of 

action. (See Compl. at 4–6 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 247, 241, 242); see also Aldabe v. 

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980) (“[18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242] provide no 

basis for civil liability.”); Monet v. United States, No. 97-00281-DAE, 1997 WL 1038149, 

at *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 15, 1997) (“[18 U.S.C. § 247] provides no private right of action.”) 

Those claims in the Complaint for which civil causes of action do exist — Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Action claims — rest on unclear, 

vague, or conclusory factual allegations. (Mot. at 2–4, 6–8.) Thus, even considering 

the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success 

on the merits. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

1

 As a plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening 

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Nothing in this order should be construed as a final determination of 

whether Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for purposes of screening. 

Case 2:24-cv-02535-DJC-CKD Document 4 Filed 09/20/24 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 

3 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. This 

matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings. 

Dated: September 19, 2024 

 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:24-cv-02535-DJC-CKD Document 4 Filed 09/20/24 Page 3 of 3