Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05308/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zakariah LaFreniere
Plaintiff
Regents of the University of California
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAKARIAH LAFRENIERE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-05308 CRB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Plaintiff Zakariah LaFreniere (“LaFreniere”), proceeding in pro per, has filed this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1981 alleging that his expulsion from the University of

California at Berkeley (“the University”) in 1999 was a result of race discrimination. Now

pending before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) to require defendant Regents of the University of California

(“the Regents”) to readmit plaintiff to the University in time for registration for the Fall 2006

semester. LaFreniere, in a Reply filed nearly one week late, has requested that the Court

vacate the hearing date of July 7, 2006, and rule on his motion based on the briefs. After

carefully considering the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary

pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), and plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 8
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

1

Plaintiff’s Reply brief states that the final grade received was a C+. Pl.’s Reply at 4.

2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

LaFreniere entered the University as a Legal Studies major in the Fall of 1997. Pl.’s

Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 2. He expected to graduate in May 1999. Id. During the Spring 1998

semester, LaFreniere received a grade of C in a Rhetoric class.1 Compl. at 2-3. 

LaFreniere, who is African-American, contends that the low grade resulted from a

“flagrant (state-sponsored) conspiracy” to implement a “de facto Jim Crow grading scheme.” 

Id. at 4, 17. LaFreniere also accuses the instructor of the class of using a racial epithet

against him during discussion of the narrative of Frederick Douglass. Id. at 2. LaFreniere

states that he protested the Rhetoric mark with numerous University officials, but to no avail.

Id. at 3-7. LaFreniere alleges that he was later notified that he was being charged with

violating the Berkeley Campus Code of Student Conduct (“CSC”) as a result of, in his words,

his “railing against apathetic administration.” Id. at 7. LaFreniere, believing that his alleged

“disruptive” activities amounted to speech protected by the First Amendment, did not attend

a campus hearing concerning the alleged misconduct. Id. at 6-7. When LaFreniere

attempted to register for the Fall 1998 term, he learned that he was subject to a one-year

suspension and registration block that prevented him from enrolling in classes. Id. at 7-8. 

When LaFreniere attempted to attend classes despite not being allowed to register, he was

escorted off campus by University police. Id. at 7-10. LaFreniere was formally expelled

from the University after a student disciplinary hearing in 1999 for violations of the CSC. 

Mot., Ex. A.

In December 2003, four years after his dismissal from the University, LaFreniere

states that he contacted the University Rhetoric Department to inquire about taking the

classes needed to obtain his degree via Internet. This effort was unsuccessful. Compl. at 11. 

That same month, LaFreniere petitioned then-campus Chancellor Robert Berdahl for

readmission. Id.; Compl., Ex. A. In January 2004, Berdahl denied the request, citing

LaFreniere’s “pattern of aggressive and threatening behavior [toward] and stalking [of] . . .

several members of the Berkeley faculty and administration.” Compl., Ex. A. The

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 8
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

3

chancellor wrote that the decision was final. Id. Throughout 2004, LaFreniere alleges that

he was repeatedly stymied in his efforts to enroll in University classes or have the registration

block lifted. In March 2005, current Chancellor Robert Birgeneau again rejected a

readmission request by LaFreniere. Mot., Ex. A.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff has filed multiple lawsuits against the Regents in this district, many of which

allege similar claims of discrimination. Most of the cases filed by LaFreniere were dismissed

for failure to pay the filing fee, and therefore did not reach the merits.

On October 15, 2004, LaFreniere filed a claim pre-dating the instant action in which

he alleged that the Regents had engaged in discriminatory practices. On February 14, 2005,

Judge Martin J. Jenkins dismissed that action. See LaFreniere v. Regents of the Univ. of

Cal., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7302, Case No. C 04-4369 MJJ (N.D. Cal. 2005). In that case,

LaFreniere had accused the Regents of carrying out “de jure Jim Crow” in the California

higher education system by discarding Affirmative Action.

On December 15, 2004, LaFreniere filed this action in which he alleged that he had

suffered racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981 when the Regents

blocked him from registering for classes at the University beginning in 1998. LaFreniere

seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, as well as relief including reinstatement to the

University and expungement of allegations concerning his allegedly “stalking and

threatening behavior.” On February 22, 2005, the Regents moved to dismiss LaFreniere’s

present action. On April 11, 2005, the Court granted the Regents’ motion and dismissed the

case with prejudice, concluding that LaFreniere’s claims were barred by the doctrine of res

judicata and by the applicable statute of limitations. LaFreniere v. Regents of the Univ. of

CA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6723, Case No. C 04-5308 CRB (N.D. Cal. 2005). The res

judicata finding was based on Judge Jenkins’ dismissal on the merits of LaFreniere’s earlier

claim against the University. The statute of limitations ruling stemmed from the fact that

plaintiff alleged that he was blocked from registering for classes in 1998 and that the

applicable limitation period was no longer than four years and thus expired in 2002.

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 8
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

4

LaFreniere appealed the Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit. On March 29, 2006,

the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case. LaFreniere v. Regents of the Univ. of

Cal., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7887 (9th Cir. Cal., Mar. 29, 2006). The Ninth Circuit

concluded that the Court improperly dismissed on the basis of res judicata because the

present action had arisen from a different “transactional nucleus of facts” than the earlier

case, and that “the district court’s application of the statute of limitations fail[ed] to account

for the events LaFreniere alleged occurred in 2004, the same year the instant action was

filed.” Id. at *1-2.

On June 2, 2006, LaFreniere filed this Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The

Regents filed an Opposition on June 7, 2006. In a Reply filed June 29, 2006, nearly a week

late, LaFreniere requested that the Court decide the motion without oral argument. On July

3, 2006, the Regents filed a Response to LaFreniere’s request that the hearing date be

vacated. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The principal purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and

prevent irreparable injury pending trial on the merits. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix

Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Because an injunction is an equitable

remedy, a plaintiff must first satisfy general equitable requirements by showing a significant

threat of irreparable injury and that legal remedies are inadequate. Stanley v. Univ. of S.

Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S.

500, 506-07 (1959)).

An application for preliminary relief must meet additional criteria. To obtain a

preliminary injunction under the traditional four-part test, a plaintiff is required to show: (1) a

strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to the

plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff,

and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of

Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). The Ninth Circuit has adopted an alternative and more modern standard, under

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 8
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

5

which the moving party may meet its burden by demonstrating either: (1) a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury if relief is not granted;

or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships

tips sharply in its favor. Id. While this modern test is phrased in the disjunctive, many courts

view it as a single test, with the two alternatives representing “extremes of a single

continuum.” Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir.

2003).

DISCUSSION

The Regents advance both substantive and procedural grounds upon which plaintiff’s 

motion should be denied. Because plaintiff is proceeding in pro per, the Court may employ a

less exacting standard in evaluating his compliance with Local Rules. See Jackson v. Carey,

353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972))

(“Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.”). As a result, the Court first addresses the Regents’ substantive arguments. 

Because LaFreniere’s motion fails on those grounds, the Court need not address the Regents’

procedural argument. 

I. Probability of Success on the Merits and Possibility of Irreparable Injury

A. Probability of Success

LaFreniere has failed to offer any declarations, affidavits or other evidence

demonstrating that his section 1981 suit is likely to succeed on the merits. LaFreniere’s twoand-a-half page motion does not cite a single legal authority in support of his request for

injunctive relief. Furthermore, plaintiff’s Reply, filed a week late, also fails to include any

evidence supporting his motion.

In fact, the only “supporting” documents filed with his motion consist of two exhibits

that do not establish that his suit is likely to succeed but merely show that he was expelled 

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 8
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

2Exhibit A appears to be a copy of a letter addressed to LaFreniere from University

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau dated March 18, 2005. The letter is a denial of LaFreniere’s

request for readmission. Exhibit B appears to be a copy of a letter from the University’s Office

of Undergraduate Admissions and a copy of a check made out to the University by LaFreniere

for “Re-admission” and returned, uncashed, to him.

6

from the University and denied readmission.2 While LaFreniere need not show that he is

certain to prevail on the merits, he must at minimum establish that there is a “fair chance of

success on the merits.” Johnson, 72 F.3d at 1430 (internal citation omitted). The Ninth

Circuit’s reversal and remand of the case does not establish that LaFreniere’s section 1981

suit is likely to succeed. The Ninth Circuit’s action did not address the merits of

LaFreniere’s present claim, which would require him to prove intentional or purposeful race

discrimination. See De Horney v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n, 879 F.2d 459,

467 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing General Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375

(1982)). Rather, the Court of Appeals decided only that this Court improperly dismissed the

case on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds. In sum, LaFreniere’s unsupported and

conclusory allegations fail to establish even the possibility of success on the merits much less

a probability of success.

B. Possibility of Irreparable Injury

Even assuming that LaFreniere’s papers could be construed as presenting some

colorable prospect of success, his motion nevertheless fails because he has made no showing

of irreparable harm that would result from a denial of his motion. Plaintiff’s assertion, first

made in his Reply, that he will suffer “irreparable psychological injury” if the injunction is

denied, is unsupported and unpersuasive.

Perhaps most telling in this regard is LaFreniere’s lengthy delay in seeking injunctive

relief. An unreasonable delay in seeking such relief is relevant in deciding whether such

relief is truly necessary. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374,

1377 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Plaintiff’s long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies

a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.”). LaFreniere’s Complaint indicates that the

registration block giving rise to the instant action first took effect in 1998. The block had

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 6 of 8
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

7

apparently been in place for five years when, in December 2003, LaFreniere unsuccessfully

petitioned Chancellor Berdahl for readmission.

Thus, because LaFreniere has shown neither a potential for irreparable injury nor a

reasonable probability of success on the merits of his claim, his motion fails.

II. Serious Questions and Balance of Hardships

Though LaFreniere’s inability to show the probability of irreparable injury is fatal to

his motion, LaFreniere is also unable to demonstrate that his motion should be granted on the

ground that it raises serious questions and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his

favor. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839-40

(9th Cir. 2001).

“Serious questions” are questions that involve a fair chance of success on the merits

that cannot be resolved one way or the other at the hearing on the injunction, “and as to

which the court perceives the need to preserve the status quo lest one side prevent resolution

of the questions or execution of any judgment by altering the status quo.” Republic of

Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988).

Here, for essentially the same reasons that he cannot demonstrate a probability of

success or a possibility of irreparable injury, LaFreniere fails to show that serious questions

are raised by his motion. A complete lack of supporting evidence and argument severely

undercut plaintiff’s contention that his motion for injunctive relief raises serious questions.

LaFreniere also makes no showing that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his

favor. According to University correspondence attached to his filings, LaFreniere was

expelled after engaging in an alleged pattern of “aggressive behavior” toward and “stalking”

of faculty members. Here, the Regents’ interest in protecting University employees

outweighs LaFreniere’s request for urgent relief, especially in light of his lengthy delay in

filing this action.

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 7 of 8
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District 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

G:\CRBALL\2004\5308\Order 4.wpd 8

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to meet

his burden in support of a preliminary injunction. Therefore, plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

The parties are further ordered to appear for a case management conference on Friday,

August 4, 2006, at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 8 of 8