Arturo Osiel Valencia Barrera v. Whatcom County Sheriff's Office et al.

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ARTURO OSIEL VALENCIA CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02129-JNW-TLF 8 BARRERA, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 v. 11 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Arturo Osiel Valencia 15 Barrera’s motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 12. The Court 16 DENIES the motion for the reasons stated below. 17 Temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary remed[ies] that may only be 18 awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. 19 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “[A] plaintiff seeking a 20 preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that ‘[they are] likely to succeed 21 on the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 22 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an 23 1 injunction is in the public interest.’” Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 144 S. Ct. 1570, 2 1576 (2024) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). Where, as here, a party proceeds pro

3 se, district courts must construe their filings liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 4 89, 94 (2007). But even so, pro se litigants remain subject to the stringent 5 procedural and substantive rules that govern TROs. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 6 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 First, Valencia Barrera’s motion fails to satisfy the procedural requirements 8 of Rule 65(b) and Local Civil Rule 65(b)(1). It includes no certification indicating

9 notice given to Defendants. It neither certifies “efforts made to give notice,” nor 10 provides “reasons why it should not be required.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). It also 11 fails to include any indication that irreparable injury is likely to occur before notice 12 can be given. Thus, the Court denies the motion for failure to comply with necessary 13 procedural requirements. 14 Second, Valencia Barrera’s TRO motion fails to clearly satisfy the Winter 15 factors. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (requiring a “clear showing” that plaintiff is

16 entitled to relief). Valencia Barrera’s motion seeks an order enjoining Defendants 17 from: 18 [H]arassing, stalking, poisoning, drugging, raping, torturing, psychological torturing, physical violence, deprivation of medical care, 19 deprivation of an electronic tablet with the law library application, destroying any and all Whatcom County Sherif’s Office records from 20 January 2025 until the resolution of this case, and deliberate indifferent, and failure to give written responses to plaintiff’s inmate 21 request health request, and grievance forms of the Plaintiff, and for the defendants to stop ignoring Plaintiff’s medical emergencies and 22 transport Plaintiff to [medical center] for rape kit, colonoscopy, head to toe CT & MRI scans, sedative, drug and poison testing, STD testing, and 23 a full blood test. 1 Dkt. No. 12 at 1 (cleaned up). 2 Valencia Barrera’s declarations provide more details about the reason behind 3 his motion. Dkt. Nos. 13, 15, 17. He attests that his injuries are ongoing and that he 4 is the victim of an elaborate criminal conspiracy by Defendants, which has included: 5 poisoning his food, subjecting him to extreme pain, denial of hospital visits and 6 medical care, rape, denial of court access, denial of a tablet with the law library 7 application enabled, and mishandling of health requests and grievance requests. 8 Dkt. No. 13. 9 Here, the first Winter factor—likelihood of success on the merits—is 10 dispositive. Valencia Barrera generally asserts that he has been subject to 11 misconduct by Defendants. The TRO identifies some serious and concerning forms 12 of misconduct, which appear to form the basis of Valencia Barrera’s underlying 13 complaint, Dkt. No. 11, but the motion does not address the Winter factors. Overall, 14 the motion is a series of conclusory statements about the form of relief sought by 15 Valencia Barrera. Even when construed liberally, the Court cannot identify a legal 16 claim at issue, let alone evidence of Valencia Barrera’s likelihood of success on the 17 merits. Because the first factor is not met, the Court need not address the three 18 remaining factors. Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s TRO motion, Dkt. No. 12, is DENIED without 20 prejudice. 21

22 Dated this 27th day of April, 2026. 23 1 a Jamal N. Whitehead 2 United States District Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23