Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02556/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02556-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fontana Police Department
Defendant
San Francisco Police Department
Defendant
James Tatlis
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 

JAMES TATLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FONTANA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-2556-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST, 

DENYING REQUEST FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

 On May 11, 2016, plaintiff James Tatlis (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against the 

Fontana Police Department, John Does 1-50, the San Francisco Police Department, and 

John Does 1-10. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a 

request for a temporary restraining order. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security 

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give 

security therefor.” The court finds that plaintiff does meet the financial requirement of 

section 1915, therefore his application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

 However, in reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may 

dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma 

pauperis status has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not adequately state a claim 

on which relief may be granted, and therefore dismisses the complaint with leave to 

amend. 

Case 4:16-cv-02556-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

 Plaintiff’s complaint is titled “complaint for civil rights violations under the color of 

authority, acts of terror, rights against unlawful surveillance, search and seizure, rights to 

privacy under the 4th, 6th, 10th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution, 

et seq.” The complaint does not assert any specific causes of action, but rather consists 

of a narrative regarding the surveillance and harassment to which plaintiff was allegedly 

subjected. For instance, plaintiff alleges that, while driving on the Interstate 5 freeway, 

several vehicles “began pursuing” him “in a very aggressive manner,” “terrorizing him and 

forcing him off the road.” Plaintiff further alleges that he had “solid metal debris” thrown 

at him from people in those vehicles, which “put a hole in the front windshield.” Plaintiff 

also alleges that he has been subject to “constant surveillance, whether on foot or driving 

his vehicle, outside his hotel room,” or anywhere else. 

 As mentioned above, the complaint does not set forth any specific causes of 

action, though it does state that “[p]laintiff maintains these actions violate his 

constitutional rights to be free from government oppression, and government intrusion 

into his private life, and to unreasonable search and seizure of his private life, his vehicle, 

his property, with fear, terror and intimidation, rising to a cause of action.” Plaintiff also 

alleges that he believes he is being subjected to this conduct “based on the fact that the 

plaintiff is a convicted sex offender,” which places him “in a ‘non-citizen’ type of status” in 

the view of law enforcement. 

 Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order asks for the following relief: 

“for defendants, their agents, to cease and desist all harassment, terrorizing and 

following, surveilling petitioner with the intent to cause a serious accident and intent to 

cause fear and terror, to cease and desist all unlawful searches, and seizures, and all 

unlawful surveillance, including any GPS, wiretaps, any audio and video surveillance, 

meant solely to cause fear, terror, and harassment under the guise of the color of 

authority, as these unlawful types of surveillance violates plaintiff’s right to privacy and 

pursuit of happiness.” 

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general 

Case 4:16-cv-02556-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle 

Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. 

John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 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. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 

374 (2008). 

 Alternatively, the plaintiff may demonstrate that “serious questions going to the 

merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor,” 

Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Lands 

Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008)), “so long as the plaintiff also shows 

a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest,” id. at 

1053. 

 “Serious questions” are those which are “substantial, difficult, and doubtful, as to 

make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberative investigation.” Senate 

of State of Cal. v. Mosbacher, 968 F.2d 974, 977-78 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Gilder v. PGA 

Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir.1991)); Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 

F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988) (“‘serious questions’ refers to questions which cannot be 

resolved one way or the other at the hearing on the injunction and as to which the court 

perceives a need to preserve the status quo lest one side prevent resolution of the 

questions or execution of any judgment by altering the status quo”). Although the serious 

questions posed by the movant “need not promise a certainty of success, nor even a 

probability of success,” he or she must nevertheless demonstrate a “fair chance of 

success” on the merits. Gilder, 936 F.2d at 422; see also Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix 

Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). 

 An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion” and is “an extraordinary remedy 

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

Case 4:16-cv-02556-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

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 

Wi

act

an

the

ha

tem

to 

DIS

def

an 

spe

na

ba

inv

Da

nter, 129 S

Overal

tion require

y asserted 

eories unde

s establishe

mporary res

state a clai

SMISSED. 

Althoug

ficiencies in

amended c

ecify the nu

me; must a

sis for each

volvement i

Any am

IT IS S

ated: May 1

S.Ct. at 376

l, the fact th

es both dism

causes of a

er which pla

ed a likeliho

straining ord

m on which

 

gh the cour

n the comp

complaint. 

umber of de

allege sepa

h cause of a

n the wrong

mended com

SO ORDER

13, 2016 

, 381. 

hat the com

missal of the

action, the 

aintiff seeks

ood of succ

der is DEN

h relief may

rt is of the o

laint, the co

 For that am

efendants b

rate causes

action; and

gful act alle

mplaint mus

RED. 

4

mplaint does

e complain

court canno

s relief. Acc

cess on the

IED. The c

y be granted

opinion that

ourt will non

mended co

being sued 

s of action; 

 must alleg

eged in eac

st be filed n

__

PH

Un

s not identi

t and denia

ot discern f

cordingly, th

e merits of h

court also fi

d under 28 

t re-pleadin

netheless a

mplaint to b

and identify

must state

ge facts sho

h cause of 

no later tha

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

fy any reco

al of the TR

from plaintif

he court ca

his claims, a

inds that pl

U.S.C. § 1

ng will not re

allow plainti

be success

y each defe

e a constitut

owing each 

action. 

n June 10,

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

ognizable ca

RO request.

ff’s compla

annot find th

and his req

aintiff’s com

915(e), and

esolve the 

ff an oppor

sful, plaintiff

endant by o

tional or sta

defendant’

, 2016. 

__________

udge 

auses of 

 Without 

int the lega

hat plaintiff 

quest for a 

mplaint fails

d thus, it is 

rtunity to file

f must 

official 

atutory 

’s personal

_______ 

l 

s

e

Case 4:16-cv-02556-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 4