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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD HERSHIPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00473-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 10 

On January 30, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint against the California Judicial Council, the 

California Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Sacramento County Superior Courts alleging 

that the same have violated his due process rights by suspending his driver’s license without 

providing him with an ability to pay hearing. (Dkt. No. 1.) Concurrently, plaintiff also filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order asking this Court to order the reinstatement of his 

driver’s license. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Court held a phone conference on February 6, 2017, during 

which the parties discussed potential avenues for informal resolution of the instant action. (Dkt. 

No. 9.) On February 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining 

order, in which he made claims that defendants were refusing to participate in the necessary 

processes to resolve his claim. (Dkt. No. 10.) 

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general 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 lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic 

remedy” that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal 

citations omitted). Whether seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a 

plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 14 Filed 02/15/17 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 

Northern District of Californi

a

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. Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

While the Court takes no position on the underlying merits of the claims, plaintiff has 

failed to establish at this juncture that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, nor that 

he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order. 

The Court SETS a Case Management Conference for Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. 

in the Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1. By May 15, 2017, 

the parties must file a case management conference statement in accordance with the Local Rules 

of the Northern District of California and this Court’s Standing Order.1

This Order terminates Docket Number 3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 15, 2017 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 1

 The Court also reminds plaintiff of his obligations to file proof of service of the 

complaint on the defendants in this action. Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)–(l), such 

must be served on defendants within ninety (90) days of filing a complaint, and proof thereof must 

be filed with the Court. 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 14 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 2