Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00002/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

C-08-00002 RMW

TSF

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed: 1/9/08 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THAO NGOC NGUYEN

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE and COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA,

Defendants.

No. CV-08-00002 RMW

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

[Re Docket No. 3]

Thao Ngoc Nguyen requests the court to order the United States Attorney's Office to come to

his house to protect him and to forensically examine his body, particularly his backbone and pelvis. 

Docket No. 3, at 5. Presumably, Mr. Nguyen requests the examination to attempt to detect the small

electronic devices allegedly implanted in his body. Mr. Nguyen generally states that he has been the

victim of a crime (the implanting of devices in his body) and that his life is threatened.

Rule 65(b) governs the issuance of temporary restraining orders. The rule requires a plaintiff

to state "specific facts [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will

result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). 

The rule also requires the plaintiff to certify his efforts to notify the opposing party and any reasons

why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).

Mr. Nguyen's request for a temporary protective order fails for both of these reasons. First,

Case 5:08-cv-00002-RMW Document 3 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

C-08-00002 RMW

TSF 2

Mr. Nguyen's application does not state specific facts demonstrating the need for a restraining order. 

Second, Mr. Nguyen states only that because he has requested a temporary protective order, he need

not serve the defendants. That is not the law. The court can only issue a temporary restraining order

without notice to the party that the order will enjoin where the plaintiff demonstrates a need for

proceeding ex parte. Mr. Nguyen has not shown why the city of San Jose and county of Santa Clara

should not be heard regarding his request.

Mr. Nguyen's application also appears defective because he requests injunctive relief from

the United States Attorney, but he has sued the city of San Jose and the county of Santa Clara, not

the United States Attorney.

Finally, Mr. Nguyen has alleged that this court has jurisdiction because of the

"unconstitutionality of federal statutes." Mr. Nguyen does not allege which statutes he claims are

unconstitutional. Without subject matter jurisdiction over the case, the court cannot issue any

orders, let alone order the United States Attorney to protect Mr. Nguyen and examine him for

implanted devices.

Accordingly, Mr. Nguyen's request for temporary protective orders is denied.

DATED: 1/8/08 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-00002-RMW Document 3 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

C-08-00002 RMW

TSF 3

Notice of this document has been mailed to:

Plaintiff:

Thao Ngoc Nguyen 

2150 Monterey Road 

#43 

San Jose, CA 95112 

Counsel for Defendant(s):

No appearance.

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/9/08 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:08-cv-00002-RMW Document 3 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 3