Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01896/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01896-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Peter Michael Palmer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kenton D. Jones, in his official capacity

as Yavapai County Superior Court

Judge; Robert M. Brutinel, in his official

capacity of Arizona Supreme Court

Justice; John Pelander, in his official

capacity of Arizona Supreme Court

Justice; W. Scott Bales, in his official

capacity of Arizona Supreme Court

Justice; Andrew D. Hurwitz, in his

official capacity of Arizona Supreme

Court Justice; Rebecca White Berch, in

his official capacity of Arizona Supreme

Court Justice; Unknown Parties, John or

Jane Does I-M, in their official capacity

of judicial officer in and for the State of

Arizona,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1896-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Petition for Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order (without notice), Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Verified

Complaint for Injunctive & Declaratory Relief (Doc. 1); and Application to Proceed in

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will, however, deny Defendant’s

requested Temporary Restraining Order without notice. 

Case 2:11-cv-01896-JAT Document 4 Filed 10/03/11 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 -

 Analysis

Plaintiff asks this Court to issue a temporary restraining order without notice. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 65(b) permits the Court to do so only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to

the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and the movant’s attorney

certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be

required.’ Plaintiff has not met that burden.

According to the allegations of Plaintiff’s Petition for Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order, Motion For Preliminary Injunction and Verified Complaint for Injunctive

& Declaratory Relief (Doc. 1), Plaintiff was served, on Friday, September 16, with a Civil

Injunction Against Harassment which restrains him from taking specified actions with

respect to Melody Thomas-Morgan. Plaintiff argues that Judge Jones’s determination that

he has threatened Ms. Thomas-Morgan violates or chills his First Amendment Rights to

speak on his internet blog. Plaintiff further argues that the injunction, as issued,

unconstitutionally prohibits him from possessing firearms during the term of the injunction.

Plaintiff thus asks this Court to take jurisdiction over this matter and without notice

order Judge Jones, the Yavapai County Superior Court Judge issuing the injunction, to vacate

the injunction immediately because it chills Plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech and

deprives him of his right to bear arms. Plaintiff further requests the Court to: (1) declare

Arizona Rules of Procedure on Orders of Protection 6(E)(4)(e)(2) unconstitutional; (2) order

the Justices of the Supreme Court to repeal it; and (3) enjoin the Arizona Supreme Court, and

by extension, all judicial officers from issuing said injunctions. He further requests that the

Court order that Plaintiff’s name be removed from the NCIC database on which he alleges

he will be placed due to the issuance of the injunction and that we further allow him to audit

that database to confirm his removal from it. 

Of course, pursuant to Arizona law, in those cases in which an injunction is issued

without notice, which this one apparently was, Plaintiff is entitled to an expedited hearing

if he wishes, to challenge the injunction at the earliest possible date and not later than ten

Case 2:11-cv-01896-JAT Document 4 Filed 10/03/11 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 -

days after Plaintiff’s request. A.R.S. § 12-1809(H) (Supp. 2010). Plaintiff alleges that even

if he brings such a challenge, ten days would not be a sufficient time in which to prepare his

case, and, on the other hand, if he lost, appellate relief would take too long. This argument

is belied by the extensive arguments he has set forth in his motion. Plaintiff is currently

aware of the legitimate bases on which to challenge the injunction if he wishes to do so in

state court.

 Injunctions against harassment are generally the province of state courts. This Court,

does not necessarily know all the facts under which the state court determined that the

injunction without notice should issue to the Plaintiff in this matter. Thus, it cannot

determine the extent, if any, to which Plaintiff is suffering immediate and irreparable injury

by virtue of the injunction without giving Defendants the opportunity to be heard. At any

rate “adequate state court review”of Judge Jones’ order is available on an expedited basis

before Judge Jones himself, and, if necessary the Arizona appellate courts. Further, as

Plaintiff’s Complaint ably sets forth, the appropriate interpretation of the scope of the

injunction is subject to arguments under both state and federal law, and Plaintiff asserts could

be invalidated under either or both. This, thus appears to be a case in which it may be

appropriate for this Court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction under Railroad Comm’n

of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). In such cases, it is appropriate for a federal

court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction until the state courts have had the opportunity

to decide the question to determine whether an appropriate application of state law avoids

any federal questions. 

Given the circumstances present here, Plaintiff is not eligible for the entry of a TRO

without notice. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is granted. Plaintiff shall be responsible

for service by waiver or of the summons and complaint

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order (Doc. 1) is denied. 

Case 2:11-cv-01896-JAT Document 4 Filed 10/03/11 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 -

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01896-JAT Document 4 Filed 10/03/11 Page 4 of 4