Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05546/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05546-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-5546 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHARLES MUHAMMAD,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THOMAS CARPER, et al.

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-5546 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 DENYING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DENYING APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER; AND SETTING DEADLINE

FOR PAYMENT OF FILING FEE

[re doc. no. 2]

Plaintiff has filed a one-page complaint against a number of individuals, asserting in

conclusory terms that they violated his civil rights as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and

Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He does not allege any facts whatsoever

in support of his complaint. It is impossible to discern from the complaint what Defendants are

alleged to have done. Plaintiff nonetheless seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and seeks a

temporary restraining order.

Case 5:06-cv-05546-JF Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 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

Case No. C 06-5546 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC2)

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil

action in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing

fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma

pauperis status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is

frivolous or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v.

First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). 

As presently drafted, the complaint appears to be without merit in that it fails to set forth

any facts that would support a cognizable claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in

forma pauperis is denied. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee on or before January 19, 2007,

the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.

APPLICATION FOR TRO

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order “(TRO”) is the same as that for

issuing a preliminary injunction. Brown Jordan International, Inc. v. Mind’s Eye Interiors, Inc.,

236 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1154 (D. Hawaii 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes

Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a

preliminary injunction must show either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and

the balance of hardships tipping in the movant’s favor. Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1401-

02 (9th Cir. 1998); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int’l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir.

1984). These formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree

of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases. Roe, 134 F.3d at 1402. A

showing of likely success on the merits gives rise to a presumption of irreparable harm in

copyright and trademark cases. Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330,

1335 (9th Cir. 1995); International Jenson, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 827 (9th

Cir. 1993).

A TRO may be granted without notice to the adverse party only if “(1) it clearly appears

from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable

Case 5:06-cv-05546-JF Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 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

Case No. C 06-5546 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC2)

injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney

can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the

efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that

notice should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Moreover, in this district an applicant for

TRO must give notice to the adverse party “[u]nless relieved by order of a Judge for good cause

shown.” Civ. L.R. 65-1(b).

Given the lack of factual specificity in Plaintiff’s complaint and his lack of explanation

for failing to give notice to Defendants, the Court will deny the application for TRO.

ORDER

(1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. If Plaintiff does

not pay the filing fee on or before January 19, 2007, the Court will dismiss the

action without prejudice.

(2) Plaintiff’s application for temporary restraining order is DENIED.

DATED: 12/18/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05546-JF Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 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

Case No. C 06-5546 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Charles Muhammad, pro se

645 4th Street

Richmond, CA 94801 

Case 5:06-cv-05546-JF Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 4