Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00182/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cameron Nazeri
Defendant
Woodland Park Property Owner LLC
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WOODLAND PARK PROPERTY 

OWNER LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAMERON NAZERI,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00182-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DENYING REQUEST FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 5, 6

Cameron Nazermoussavi1, self-representing, has filed a notice of removal, Dkt. No. 1, and 

a request for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 5. Cameron Nazermoussavi seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the request 

for a temporary restraining order, and DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis.

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Pending before the Court is the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. The 

Court denies the motion without prejudice.

Cameron Nazermoussavi filed the IFP motion on January 10, 2019. Id. In the motion,

Movant Nazermoussavi fails to answer the applicable questions with sufficient detail to permit the 

Court to evaluate Movant’s ability to pay the filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Movant claims 

that all of Movant’s assets are “held in trust.” Dkt. No. 2 at 3. Movant discloses no other source 

of income. Id. at 1–2. Movant does not explain how Movant is able to pay her expenses, which 

total an estimated $3,700 per month. Id. at 3. Without this information, the Court cannot evaluate 

whether Movant is financially able to pay the filing fee.

 

1 Though the caption in the underlying action identifies a Camero Nazeri, Movant’s papers 

consistently use the name Cameron Ahad Nazermoussavi. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 6-1.

Case 4:19-cv-00182-HSG Document 8 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Movant may file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days of the 

date of this Order. In a renewed motion, Movant must reasonably and truthfully answer all 

applicable questions, including those that require Movant to indicate sources of income, expenses 

and liabilities. If Movant fails to file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 

days, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice. In the alternative, Movant may choose 

instead to pay the filing fee rather than submit a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

II. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Based on Movant’s multiple filings, the Court construes Movant’s request as a motion for 

a temporary restraining order enjoining Woodland Park Property Owner, LLC and the San Mateo 

Sherriff Department from evicting Movant pursuant to a San Mateo County Superior Court order 

issued on January 10, 2019. See Dkt. No. 6 at 5; Dkt. No. 5; Dkt. No. 7.

A. Legal Standard

The standards for issuing a TRO and preliminary injunction are the same. See New Motor 

Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n. 2, (1977). A preliminary 

injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the

plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 

(2008). “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to 

demonstrate (1) ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) 

that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th 

Cir. 2009). As a corollary to this test, the Ninth Circuit has also found a preliminary injunction 

appropriate if “serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships 

tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” thereby allowing preservation of the status quo where 

complex legal questions require further inspection or deliberation. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).

“These formulations are not different tests but represent two points on a sliding scale in 

which the degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success on the merits 

Case 4:19-cv-00182-HSG Document 8 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

decreases.” Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of the Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 

1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[u]nder either formulation, the moving party must demonstrate a 

significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury.” See id.

B. Discussion

The Court DENIES Movant’s application for a temporary restraining order. Movant has 

failed to meet the requisite standards warranting such extraordinary relief. Movant fails to provide 

any legal or factual basis for the request that the Court set aside the San Mateo Superior Court 

order of eviction. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Movant’s request for a TRO. Docket Number 6 is 

terminated as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/10/2019

Case 4:19-cv-00182-HSG Document 8 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 3