Anthony v. Segura

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00458
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAN ANTHONY, Case No. 24-cv-0458-BAS-SBC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 1) 14 JUDGE DANIEL SEGURA,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Marian Anthony’s Complaint and Request for a 18 Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 1.) Because the defendant in this case has not 19 yet been served, this request is made ex parte. 20 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success 21 on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 22 preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) 23 that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 24 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 25 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO 26 granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and 27 “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte 28 TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Here Plaintiff requests the TRO against a state-court judge to “declare . . . all prior 2 || orders a nullity, with no lawful enforcement.” (ECF No. | at 6.) Plaintiff claims Defendant 3 || Judge Daniel Segura “violated the US constitution, Article 3, and Federal Civil Rule 58.” 4 at 5.) Plaintiff claims Judge Segura did so when he issued an order “in vacation” and 5 ||““without governmental power.” (/d.) Plaintiff does not offer either a copy of the order at 6 ||issue or explain the facts giving rise to Plaintiff's claims. Further, Anthony does not 7 || provide a reason for why this Court should grant a TRO against the defendant without due 8 notice to the defendant to appear and defend against this action and Plaintiffs allegations. 9 || Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a TRO 10 |} and the request is hereby DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 /\ 14 || DATED: March 11, 2024 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9.