Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80124/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Board of Pediatrics
Defendant
Michelle Jones
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-mc-80124-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Docket Nos. 1, 2

On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff Michelle Jones filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

(TRO) and preliminary injunction, seeking an order that Defendant American Board of Pediatrics 

be required to permit Ms. Jones to take the October 2016 Board Certification Exam. Docket No. 1 

(TRO App.). Ms. Jones has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 2 

(IFP App.).

The Court DENIES without prejudice Ms. Jones’s motion for a TRO. First, Ms. Jones has 

not filed a complaint. Thus, there is no predicate for the motion, and the Court cannot determine if 

there is proper basis for jurisdiction and venue before this Court, or whether Ms. Jones’s claims 

have sufficient merit to support issuing a TRO.1 Second, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs have 

satisfied Local Rule 65-1, which requires that “counsel applying for the temporary restraining 

order must deliver notice of such motion to opposing counsel or party.” Plaintiffs do not state that 

they have served the complaint (which again, was not filed before this Court) on the American 

Board of Pediatrics, or provided them with any notice of the instant motion.2

 

1

The Court notes that it is unclear what basis Ms. Jones has to pursue a due process claim against 

the American Board of Pediatrics, when there does not appear to be any state action.

2

Further, based on a review of the papers, it is not apparent why a TRO is warranted as opposed 

Case 3:16-mc-80124-EMC Document 5 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

The Court also DENIES Ms. Jones’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. When 

presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first determine if the 

applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Section 1915(a) does not require an applicant 

to demonstrate absolute destitution. See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 853, 

854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemous & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 

(1948)). However, according to Ms. Jones’s application, Ms. Jones and her husband make a 

combined income of $25,700 per month, and list monthly expenses of $4,260. Ms. Jones clearly 

does not satisfy the economic eligibility requirement.

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES without prejudice Ms. Jones’s motion for 

a TRO, and DENIES Ms. Jones’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 1 and 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

 

to a properly noticed motion for preliminary injunction, given that the Board Examination will not 

take place until October 2016.

Case 3:16-mc-80124-EMC Document 5 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 2