Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TOEPFER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK

ORDER DENYING IFP REQUESTS AS 

MOOT, AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF Nos. 2, 3, 18)

Plaintiffs Robert Toepfer, Shawn O’Malley, Joan Alford, James Nelson, Pam 

Nelson, Cassandra Salinas, and Michael L. Mardell bring this action in pro per against 

Defendants City of Vallejo, the Vallejo Police Department, Vallejo City Manager Andrew 

Murray, CalTrans, Solano County Sheriff Deputy Dale Matsuoka, Assistant to the Vallejo 

City Manager Natalie Peterson, and Golden Bay Security Services. See Compl. (ECF 

No. 1.)1 Plaintiffs are unhoused individuals in Vallejo, California who challenge their 

upcoming removal from an encampment by Defendants. Pending before the Court is 

Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary 

Injunction against Defendants. (ECF No. 3.) On October 4, 2024, the Court held a 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 1 of 14
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

hearing by Zoom2 where all Plaintiffs appeared in pro per, and attorney Hampton A. 

Jackson entered a special appearance on behalf of Defendants City of Vallejo, Vallejo 

Police Department, Murray, and Peterson (“Vallejo Defendants”).

3 Defendants CalTrans, 

Deputy Matsuoka, and Golden Bay Security Services did not appear at the hearing, and 

the record does not indicate that these defendants received notice of Plaintiffs’ motion or 

of the hearing.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends DENYING Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and recommends DISMISSING Plaintiffs’

Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 

Nos. 2, 18) are denied as moot. (ECF Nos. 2, 18.)

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On August 26, 2024, the Department of Navy contacted the City of Vallejo and 

informed the City of trespassers at Building 505 within the former Mare Island Naval 

Shipyard in Vallejo, California. Natalie Peterson Decl. ¶ 9 & Exh. C (ECF No. 8-1 at 2, 

20). In February 2024, the City of Vallejo entered into a license agreement with the Navy 

to use the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Peterson Decl. ¶ 12 & Exh. D. The 

license agreement requires the City to “protect, maintain, and keep the premises under 

its control in good order.” Id.; see id. at Exh. C.

On August 27, 2024, Plaintiffs received in-person, verbal notice of eviction by the 

City of Vallejo through Defendant Peterson to move by the end of the week from their 

current encampment at 505 Azuar Street Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592 (the “Building 505 

2 Though all parties who participated in the October 4, 2024 hearing appeared by 

Zoom, the Court held this hearing in Courtroom 25 of the Sacramento federal courthouse 

to allow any party to appear in-person and to provide public access to the hearing.

Before the hearing, court staff received communications indicating that some plaintiffs 

may have difficulty appearing by Zoom. (ECF No. 9.)

3 It is unclear whether the Vallejo Defendants were properly served with the Complaint, 

summons, and Plaintiffs’ motion, and their appearance was therefore noted as a special 

appearance.

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 2 of 14
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

encampment”). Compl. at 10, 12-13, 16. Plaintiffs allege the City of Vallejo has a ”history 

of following up to the verbal notices within 48 hours en masse with tows” thereby 

forcefully moving individuals out with little notice and opportunity to remove their 

possessions and vehicles without an alternative location to move to. Id. at 12-13; see 

also id. at 16. Plaintiffs also indicate that some of them are disabled and/or have medical 

conditions that make moving difficult and have not been offered accommodations for 

their disabilities such as more time to move. See id. at 10, 12, 14, 15, 18. The Complaint 

also refers to multiple prior “sweeps” and “evictions” at other locations by the City of 

Vallejo, the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”), and/or CalTrans, where Plaintiffs were 

provided with varying amount of notice. See id. at 12-14, 16, 18,19.

On September 5, 2024, the Department of Navy filed a police report regarding 

trespass by individuals and vehicles at Building 505. Peterson Decl. Exh. C.

On September 9, 2024, the Department of Navy sent the City of Vallejo a letter 

regarding the trespassers and conditions at Building 505, including concerns that “the 

trespassers are storing fuel and other combustible items and are at risk to Navy and City 

property.” Peterson Decl. ¶ 11 & Exh. C.

On September 17, 2024, the City posted written notices that cleanup and removal 

at Buildings 505, 505A, 505B, and surrounding lots would occur on September 25, 2024. 

See Peterson Decl. ¶ 13 & Exh. E; Flor Magallanes (Administrative Analyst, Vallejo City 

Manager’s Office) Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 & Exhs. A-B (ECF No. 8-2). Defendant Deputy Matsuoka

assisted Magallanes with posting the written notices. See Magallanes Decl. ¶ 5; Pls. 

Mot. at 12.

On September 23, 2024, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)

Accommodations forms were delivered to the Vallejo City Manager’s Office by Plaintiff 

Toepfer. See Toepfer Decl. at 1 (ECF No. 3 at 90-91); Peterson Decl. ¶ 14; Vallejo Defs. 

Opp. at 2-3. Plaintiffs attached copies of their ADA request forms, which appear to be 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 3 of 14
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

from Plaintiffs O’Malley, Alford, James Nelson, and Pam Nelson. Pls. Mot., Exh. P (ECF 

No. 3 at 155, 157-159).4 The copies of four of the ADA request forms attached to 

Plaintiffs’ motion are not legible. See id. at 154, 157-159. The legible portion of Plaintiffs’

ADA request forms is from Plaintiff O’Malley, who requests the following 

accommodation: “I just need more time to move my belongings and trailer so I don’t lose 

them.” Id. at 155. The Vallejo Defendants state that the accommodations requested 

were up to a six (6) week extension to remove the Building 505 encampment and a 

request for a place to go. Vallejo Defs. Opp. at 2-3.5 It is unclear whether the Vallejo 

Defendants’ description of the requested accommodation is from Plaintiffs, from nonparties, or both Plaintiffs and non-parties. See Vallejo Defs. Opp. at 2-3.

On September 24, 2024, Administrative Analyst Magallanes and Defendant 

Deputy Matsuoka verbally informed the Building 505 encampment that “all eviction 

processes scheduled for [September] 25th would be temporarily halted for 24 hours or 

more until the city attorney could review the reasonable accommodation requests.” Pls. 

Mot. at 12.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 30, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint 

was filed using a form complaint, and attached unsigned and unsworn statements from 

each of the seven plaintiffs. Id. at 10-16, 18-19. The Complaint also attached an 

unsigned and unsworn statement from non-party Lisa Amarant.6 Id. at 17. The 

Complaint states the following are at issue in this case: “4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments 

of the U.S. Constitution and the A.D.A.” Compl. at 6. As relief, Plaintiffs request a 

4 Plaintiffs also included forms from non-parties David Paul Thorpe and Daniel G. 

Running. Id. (ECF No. 157 at 156, 160).

5 The Vallejo Defendants did not attach copies of the ADA request forms, and this 

description of the requested relief comes from their opposition brief. See Vallejo Defs. 

Opp. at 2-3.

6 The Complaint identified each of the seven plaintiffs and included signatures from 

every plaintiff. Compl. at 2, 7. Amarant is not identified as a plaintiff in the Complaint. 

See Compl.

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 4 of 14
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

5

temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from “towing and impounding vehicles 

who are operating under the City of Vallejo.” Id. at 10. Noting that California Highway 

Patrol and the Vallejo Police Department previously gave them only one or two hours to 

leave from prior locations, Plaintiff Jim Nelson requests “an extra 72 hours to move at 

least.” Id. at 14.

On September 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their ex parte Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 3.) In their motion, Plaintiffs seek 

to “stop the eviction” at 505 Azuar Avenue by Defendants; stop the City of Vallejo from 

conducting “sweeps” across the city to remove encampments of unhoused individuals;

require the City of Vallejo “to adopt noticing and eviction policies that are consistent, 

accessible and clear,” and require the City to follow these policies consistently; and 

alternatively, to require the City to grant the reasonable accommodation requests made 

under Title II of the ADA. Pls. Mot. at 17. Plaintiffs attached to their motion declarations 

from each Plaintiff7 (ECF No. 3 at 83-87, 90-98) and declarations from non-parties Lisa 

Amarant, Kevin Jones, Daniel Running, and David Thorpe (id. at 79-82, 88-89, 99-100).

On September 27, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order setting a briefing 

schedule and scheduling a hearing on October 4, 2024, ordering Plaintiffs to serve a 

copy of this minute order on Defendants, and ordering Plaintiffs to file proofs of service. 

(ECF No. 6.) Due to concerns regarding timely notice to Plaintiffs proceeding pro se and 

the docket’s lack of documentation indicating service of the TRO motion on Defendants, 

the Court provided courtesy notification of its September 27, 2024 Minute Order by email 

to Plaintiffs using the email addresses Plaintiffs listed in their filings, and by email to 

Defendant City of Vallejo. Id.

On October 1, 2024, the Vallejo Defendants filed an opposition. Vallejo Defs. 

Opp’n (ECF No. 8). No other Defendants have appeared or filed an opposition to the 

7 Plaintiffs’ declarations are substantially similar to the statements attached to the 

Complaint, with additional statements included in some of the declarations. Compare 

Pls. Mot. (ECF No. 3 at 83-87, 90-98), with Compl. at 10-16, 18-19.

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 5 of 14
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

6

motion. A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion was held on October 4, 2024. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Plaintiffs move ex parte for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 against all Defendants. The 

standard for issuing a TRO is the same as the standard for issuing a preliminary 

injunction, which requires the plaintiff to “establish that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Because the first factor “is 

a threshold inquiry and is the most important factor,” a “court need not consider the other 

factors” if a movant fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Baird v. Bonta, 81 

F.4th 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right,”

and may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 24 (citation omitted). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that 

irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

III. DISCUSSION

In their TRO motion, Plaintiffs seek (1) to enjoin Defendants from conducting 

sweeps to remove unhoused persons and their property from the Building 505 

encampment in Vallejo; (2) to stop the City of Vallejo from conducting “sweeps” across 

the city to remove encampments of unhoused individuals; and (3) to require the City of 

Vallejo “to adopt noticing and eviction policies that are consistent, accessible and clear,”

and require the City to follow these policies consistently. If the Court denies injunctive 

relief, Plaintiffs alternatively request that the Court require the City to grant the 

reasonable accommodation requests made under Title II of the ADA. Pls. Mot. at 17. 

In their opposition, the Vallejo Defendants state they are willing to provide 

Plaintiffs additional time to October 23, 2024 to remove their vehicles and encampment

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 6 of 14
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

7

at Building 505, which constitutes four (4) additional weeks from the original September 

25, 2024 removal date. Vallejo Defs. Opp’n at 2-3, 5-6. The Vallejo Defendants contend 

that anything beyond this timeframe would “fundamentally alter its program.” Id. The 

Vallejo Defendants also argue Plaintiffs are unlikely to show a likelihood of success on 

the merits of their ADA and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and that the motion should 

therefore be denied. See id. at 4-7. At the hearing, the Vallejo Defendants also argued 

that some of Plaintiffs’ allegations addressed actions taken by CalTrans in an area that is 

not part of the City of Vallejo.

The Court recognizes the hardship Plaintiffs face, and the crisis confronting 

unhoused individuals, communities, and governmental entities. On the current record 

before the Court, however, Plaintiffs do not meet the legal standard for granting a 

temporary restraining order. The Court therefore recommends denial of Plaintiffs’ motion 

as procedurally deficient; because the Court lacks authority to grant injunctive relief for 

individuals who are not parties to this lawsuit and on a new claim; and because Plaintiffs 

are unlikely to succeed on the merits where the Complaint does not sufficiently plead 

any claims for relief. The Court further recommends dismissal of the Complaint with 

leave to amend.

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion is Procedurally Deficient

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) permits the court to issue a TRO without 

notice to the adverse party only if (1) specific facts in the affidavit or underlying pleading 

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the 

opposing party may be heard; and (2) the movant certifies in writing efforts made to give 

notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). This 

Court's Local Rules also set forth certain procedural mandates for a temporary 

restraining order to issue, including that the movant provide the following documents: 

(1) a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining order; (3) a brief on the relevant 

legal issues; (4) an affidavit to support the existence of irreparable harm; (5) an affidavit 

detailing the notice or efforts undertaken or showing good cause why notice should not 

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 7 of 14
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

8

be given; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order and provision for bond; (7) a 

proposed order with blank for fixing time and date for a hearing; and (8) where a 

temporary restraining order is requested ex parte, the proposed order should also notify 

the affected parties of the right to apply to the Court for modification or dissolution on two 

(2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as the Court may allow. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 

231(c).

Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally deficient because Plaintiffs do not provide 

reasons why notice of their motion to Defendants CalTrans, Deputy Matsuoka, and 

Golden Bay Security Services should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(c)(5); Pls. Mot. Plaintiffs submitted a TRO checklist and Plaintiff 

Toepfer’s declaration regarding Plaintiffs’ efforts to notify Defendants of their motion. See

ECF No. 3-1. Plaintiff Toepfer declares that he notified the City Attorney of Vallejo and 

California Governor Gavin Newsom by email that Plaintiffs would be “filing an injunction 

on 9/25/24.” (ECF No. 3-1 at 1, 3.) Even assuming Plaintiffs provided notice to the 

Vallejo Defendants8 of their motion, Plaintiffs seek a TRO against all Defendants but did 

not provide notice of their motion to Defendants CalTrans, Deputy Matsuoka, and 

Golden Bay Security Services, or provide any reason why notice to these Defendants 

should not be required. See Pls. Mot. There is no reference in Plaintiffs’ motion, Plaintiff 

Toepfer’s declaration, or the docket regarding any such efforts. See id.; Docket. The 

Court notes that the docket includes a return of service of the Summons and Complaint 

for each Defendant.9 (ECF Nos. 11-17.) Service of the Summons and Complaint does 

not, however, constitute notice of Plaintiffs’ TRO motion to Defendants. 

Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 231(c)(5) because

they did not make efforts to provide notice of their motion to Defendants CalTrans, 

8 The Court notes that Vallejo Defendants do not contest Plaintiffs’ assertion that they 

notified the City Attorney by email of their motion. See Vallejo Defs. Opp’n.

9 The Court further notes that service of the Summons and Complaint appears to be 

defective for all Defendants except for Defendant Deputy Matsuoka because Plaintiff 

Toepfer served all other Defendants, and a party to the litigation may not serve 

documents themselves. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); ECF Nos. 11-13, 15-17.

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 8 of 14
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

9

Deputy Matsuoka, and Golden Bay Security Services, and Plaintiffs did not provide 

reasons why notice on these defendants should not be required. See Pls. Mot. The 

Complaint and motion also include allegations related to actions taken by CHP and 

CalTrans. See Compl. at 12-14; Pls. Mot. at 11, 92, 97. Courts regularly deny TROs for 

failing to comply with the stringent requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), including those sought 

by pro se plaintiffs. See Reno Air Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2006) (“courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance 

of an ex parte TRO”); Abdel-Malak v. Doe, 2020 WL 5775818, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 

2020) (denying TRO sought by pro se plaintiff for failure to satisfy Rule 65(b)’s “strict 

requirements”); Seymour v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 2010 WL 3385994, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 

26, 2010) (same); Roman v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 3489962, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 

Aug. 31, 2010) (same). In addition, Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Local Rules’

requirements for TROs is sufficient justification to deny the motion.10 See Nible v. 

Macomber, 2024 WL 2133319, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2024) (denying TRO sought by 

pro se plaintiff as procedurally deficient); see, e.g., Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure 

to comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”).

The Court will therefore recommend denial of the TRO motion based on these 

procedural deficiencies. The Court next addresses its authority to grant a TRO given the 

new parties and the new claim Plaintiffs raise in their motion.

B. The Court Lacks Authority to Grant a TRO

The Court is unable to issue an order for or against individuals who are not parties 

to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 

100, 112 (1969); see also Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 

1983) (explaining that the scope of an injunction is limited to the parties in the action).

Plaintiffs’ motion identifies five new plaintiffs who are not named in the original 

10 In addition, Plaintiffs did not submit the proposed orders required by Local Rule 

231(c)(6)-(8).

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 9 of 14
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

10

Complaint. Compare Compl. at 2, 9, with Pls. Mot. at 3 (“Attachment 1: Plaintiffs”), 6

(same). Plaintiffs have improperly attempted to name Kevin Jones, Daniel Runner, Lisa 

Amarant, David Paul Thorpe, and the Vallejo Homeless Union as new plaintiffs in their 

motion. See Pls. Mot. at 3, 6. In addition, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs’ reference to 

Governor Newsom is also a request to grant injunctive relief against Governor Newsom 

or the State of California, or to add either as a new defendant. See id. at 10, 13 & ECF 

No. 3-1 at 1. This is unclear in part because Plaintiffs’ motion does not identify any 

specific defendants, and refers to the City, CalTrans, CHP, Peterson, Deputy Matsuoka, 

the Vallejo Police Department, and Governor Newsom. See Pls. Mot. at 4 (referring to

“Attached 2” for the list of defendants, but re-attaching list of plaintiffs), 7, 10-15. 

Plaintiffs have also included in their motion a new state law claim pursuant to the 

“Tom Banes Civil Rights Act,” California Civil Code § 52.1. Compare Compl. at 6, with 

Pls. Mot. at 8 and Pls. TRO Checklist (ECF No. 3-1 at 2). “When a plaintiff seeks 

injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the 

authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 

810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief 

pursuant to a new claim raised in their motion that was not pled in the Complaint.

Therefore, the Court also recommends denial of Plaintiffs’ motion because the 

Court lacks authority to issue an order for individuals who are not parties to a suit 

pending before it and lacks authority to issue an injunction for a new claim that was not 

pled in the Complaint. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 112; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at

727; Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 633, 636.

C. Plaintiffs Have Not Clearly Shown a Likelihood of Success on the 

Merits

In an abundance of caution, the Court also examines the first and most important 

Winter element: likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated 

that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because the Complaint fails 

to sufficiently plead any claims. Because the first Winter factor of likelihood of success is 

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 10 of 14
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

11

a threshold inquiry and the most important factor, a “court need not consider the other 

factors” if a movant fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Baird, 81 F.4th at

1040; see Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). Although pro se 

pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), 

they are still required to conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995).

Even when construing the pro se Complaint liberally, it’s unclear what claims are 

being brought in the Complaint. See Compl. Though the Complaint states that the “4th, 

5th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the A.D.A.” are at issue (see 

Compl. at 6), the Complaint does not identify what claims are being brought based on 

these Constitutional provisions and the ADA. See Compl. Many different types of claims 

could be brought based on the ADA and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 

In addition, the Complaint is brought against Defendants City of Vallejo, the Vallejo 

Police Department, City Manager Murray, CalTrans, Deputy Matsuoka, Assistant to the 

City Manager Peterson, and Golden Bay Security Services (see Compl. at 3-5), but the 

Complaint “fail[s] to specify which defendants are responsible for which alleged claims.”

Davidson v. Vertus Properties, Inc., 2015 WL 7188260, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2015), 

report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 7188260 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015). As a 

result, it’s unclear what claims are being brought against which defendants. See

Davidson, 2015 WL 7188260 at *3. In addition, though the Complaint names Vallejo City 

Manager Murray and Golden Bay Security Services as Defendants (see Compl. at 4-5), 

there are no allegations about either defendant in the Complaint. See Compl. 

Because it is unclear what claims are being brought against which Defendants, 

Plaintiffs have failed to establish the likelihood of success on the merits.11 See Feathers 

v. U.S. SEC, 2022 WL 17330840, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022) (dismissing

11 Because the Court finds that the Complaint fails to sufficiently plead claims for relief, 

the Court declines to address the Vallejo Defendants’ arguments in their opposition 

regarding Plaintiffs’ ADA and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 11 of 14
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

12

complaint under Rule 8 with leave to amend, and denying TRO based on no available 

plausible claims); In re Trotochau v. Bennet, 2018 WL 6262843, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 

2018) (denying TRO where pro se plaintiff failed to state a claim and failed to provide 

notice to defendants under Rule 65(b)); Davidson, 2015 WL 7188260 at *3; Hanson v. 

Hanson, 2014 WL 587867, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014) (denying TRO because even 

when construing pro se complaint liberally, allegations were insufficient to show likely 

success on the merits). The Court need not address the other Winter factors based on 

Plaintiffs’ failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits. See Apartment Ass'n of 

Los Angeles Cnty., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 10 F.4th 905, 917 (9th Cir. 2021); see 

also Baird, 81 F.4th at 1040. The Court therefore also recommends DENYING Plaintiffs’

motion for failing to establish the likelihood of success on the merits. 

D. Plaintiffs’ Complaint Should Be Dismissed with Leave to Amend

A district court possess inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte a pleading that 

fails to comply with Rule 8. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Robert v. First Haw. Bank, 172 F.3d 58, *1 (9th Cir. 1999). 

A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility 

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Even under the liberal approach 

to pro se pleadings, the court cannot “supply essential elements of the claim that were 

not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 

1982). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by 

amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, as discussed above, the Complaint fails to specify what claims are being 

brought against which Defendants, and therefore is insufficient to state a claim under 

Rule 8 and to meet the standards set by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal. See 

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 12 of 14
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

13

Feathers, 2022 WL 17330840 at *2-3; Davidson, 2015 WL 7188260 at *3; Hanson, 2014 

WL 587867 at *3. The Court recommends dismissal of the Complaint with leave to 

amend. The attachment to Plaintiffs’ motion titled “Legal Basis for Claim,” suggests that 

Plaintiffs may be able to amend their Complaint to identify actual claims, rather than just 

listing Constitutional provisions and a statute at issue. See Pls. Mot. at 20-23. The Court 

notes that Plaintiffs’ motion does not, however, identify any specific defendants, and 

refers to the City, CalTrans, CHP, Peterson, Deputy Matsuoka, the Vallejo Police 

Department, and Governor Newsom. See Pls. Mot. at 4 (referring to “Attached 2” for the 

list of defendants, but re-attaching list of plaintiffs), 7, 10-15.

If the Complaint is dismissed and Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, it 

should be titled “First Amended Complaint” with reference to the appropriate case 

number. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior 

pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220.

Plaintiffs are warned that a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 

not suffice to state a claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. To state a claim on which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege 

enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Any First Amended Complaint should clearly identify all 

parties, the claims being brought, and against which defendants each claim is being 

brought. In addition, if the party is unrepresented, Rule 11(a) requires that “[e]very 

pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed” by a party personally if the 

party is unrepresented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). In addition, the “paper must state the 

signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number.”

IV. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiffs have also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 18.) 

However, on September 26, 2024, Plaintiffs paid the full filing fee with the Court. 

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 13 of 14
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

14

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED as moot. 

V. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis as 

moot; and recommends denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction 

as procedurally deficient; for improperly seeking injunctive relief for individuals who are 

not parties to this lawsuit and for a new claim; and because Plaintiffs are unlikely to 

succeed on the merits where the Complaint does not sufficiently plead any claims for 

relief. The Court further recommends dismissal of the Complaint with leave to amend.

A. ORDER

It is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis 

(ECF Nos. 2, 18) are DENIED as moot.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is FURTHER HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 3) be DENIED;

2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice; 

3. Plaintiffs be given thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 

reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 

455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 7, 2024

4, toep2366.24

Case 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK Document 22 Filed 10/07/24 Page 14 of 14