Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01680/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01680-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict 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

ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD STRAHAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUSAN LEA, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-01680 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

On January 29, 2007, plaintiff filed the instant application for temporary restraining order

("TRO"). Because plaintiff fails to establish sufficient irreparable injury, the Court DENIES his

application for TRO.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, plaintiff Richard Strahan enrolled as a graduate student in the Department of Physics

and Astronomy at San Francisco State University. Over the next few years, plaintiff took a small

number of classes and audited others, maintaining a 3.8 grade point average. In January 2006, however,

when he attempted to register for classes, plaintiff was told that he was being “declassified” from the

Physics Department and was no longer a student at SFSU.

Plaintiff filed this action on March 3, 2006, claiming that his declassification from the Physics

Department violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, plaintiff claims that his declassification was

orchestrated by defendants Susan Lea, graduate advisor to all graduate students in the Physics

Department, and Anne Hallum, Dean of the Graduate Studies Division of SFSU. According to plaintiff,

Lea requested that Hallum declassify him from the Physics Department because she “has come to hate

Case 3:06-cv-01680-SI Document 85 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 4
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict 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

2

Strahan personally.” Compl. ¶ 18.

Plaintiff contends that Lea’s “self-maintained vendetta” against him is the result of his criticism

of Physics Department policies. Specifically, 

In 2002, . . . Strahan sent out a series of emails . . . express[ing] Strahan’s critical opinion

on the current activities of the Physics Department’s Physics and Astromony Club

(“PAC”). Strahan opposed PAC donating student funds to outside political groups and

to award its officers grants of cash as “scholarships.” Defendant Lea became outraged

by these criticisms. She threated Strahan with immediate expulsion if he ever criticized

the PAC again or did anything else.

Compl. ¶ 5.

Defendants paint a different picture of the reason for plaintiff’s declassification. Defendants

maintain that plaintiff was originally admitted to the graduate physics program in 1986, and was

declassified for having completed only two classes, representing six of the 30 credits required for his

degree, in the intervening 20 years. Defendants also maintain that plaintiff had refused to take a required

departmental placement exam despite being given seven opportunities to do so. Def. Mot. for Sum.

Judg. at 7. Finally, defendants also point to plaintiff’s disruptive behavior and his allegedly threatening

behavior towards other students. Id.

This action has an extensive procedural history, especially given the relatively short amount of

time since it was filed. In May 2006, plaintiff filed an application for a temporary restraining order to

compel defendants to allow him to register for classes so that he would not get expelled from SFSU.

See May 24, 2006 Order. Plaintiff's application was denied for lack of imminent injury. See id.

Plaintiff's subsequent preliminary injunction motion on the same issue was denied for lack of probable

success on the merits and an insufficient showing of irreparable harm. See October 24, 2006 Order.

Defendants' motions for dismissal and summary judgment were also denied. See id; see also August 3,

2006 Order. 

Plaintiff now contends that he is being wrongfully prevented from registering for Physics classes

at San Francisco State University ("SFSU") through the school's Open University Program ("OUP").

The OUP allows any member of the public to enroll in any SFSU course with permission of the

Case 3:06-cv-01680-SI Document 85 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 4
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict 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

The OUP standard for declassified students is even higher: "A declassified student may apply 1

to another graduate program or may apply as a second baccalaureate student. Such students will not be

permitted to enroll in courses in the program from which they were declassified unless explicit approval

is obtained from the department chair of the program involved." Declaration of Lisa White, Ex. E. 

The Court notes that it is questionable whether the issue is ripe for consideration; plaintiff does 2

not appear to have actually attempted to enroll through the OUP.

3

instructor. The Chairman of the SFSU Physics Department has informed plaintiff that plaintiff would 1

not be permitted to register for Physics classes through the OUP. 

2

LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a preliminary injunction. See Los

Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson,

J., dissenting). Requests for injunctive relief may be satisfied by either of two sets of criteria. The

"traditional" test requires the movant to: (1) establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2)

show the possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show

a balance of hardships favoring the movant; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public

interest. See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200

(9th Cir. 1980). The "alternative" test requires that the movant demonstrate either a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are

raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339

F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). Under either test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant

threat of irreparable injury. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d

1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985).

DISCUSSION

The Court presumes that plaintiff makes his claim of irreparable injury in the following

statement: "[Plaintiff] is [attempting to register through the OUP] in order to obtain credits for his being

awarded a graduate Physics degree at an accredited university." App. for TRO at 1. From this sentence,

the Court could infer two possible injuries stemming from plaintiff's inability to register through the

Case 3:06-cv-01680-SI Document 85 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 4
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict 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

Indeed, the underlying lawsuit stems from defendants "declassifying" plaintiff from the Physics 3

department at SFSU.

4

OUP program: (1) harm to plaintiff's chances of earning a degree in general, and (2) harm to plaintiff's

chances of earning a degree at SFSU. 

The Court finds that neither of these purported injuries are sufficient to grant a TRO. As to the

first, there is no harm at all. Plaintiff need not attend classes at SFSU to obtain credits for a Physics

degree in general. Defendants' restrictions do not affect plaintiff's ability to register for Physics classes

at any other accredited university. 

As to the second purported injury, the harm is both speculative and reparable. Currently, plaintiff

is not a Physics graduate degree candidate at SFSU. Even if plaintiff is allowed to register for Physics 3

classes through OUP, those classes will be useless towards a degree at SFSU because plaintiff is a

"declassified" student. It follows that if plaintiff's TRO fails and he is not allowed to register for a

Physics class through OUP, any harm to the completion of his degree at SFSU is contingent upon his

winning the underlying lawsuit and gaining readmission. This asserted injury is therefore

impermissively speculative. See Carribean Marine Services Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th

Cir. 1988) ("[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to granting a preliminary

injunction") (quoting Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984)). 

Further, if plaintiff wins his lawsuit, his prayer for relief includes an injunction permitting him

to enroll at SFSU. Compl. ¶ 13. This will enable plaintiff to register for classes through normal

channels, thus repairing any harm done by plaintiff's inability to register now through the OUP. See

discussion in Oct. 24, 2006 Order. 

Because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury, the Court

DENIES his application for a TRO. (Docket No. 77). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01680-SI Document 85 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 4