Castro v. Fontes

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 18, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01865
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 John Anthony Castro, No. CV-23-01865-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Adrian Fontes, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff John Anthony Castro alleges he is a candidate for the Republican Party’s 17 nomination for President of the United States in 2024. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2.) Mr. Castro brings this 18 action against Defendants Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Donald J. 19 Trump, seeking an order enjoining Secretary Fontes “from accepting and/or processing 20 [Mr. Trump’s] ballot access documentation, including, but not limited to, nominating 21 papers and nominating petitions,” on the theory that Section 3 of the Fourteenth 22 Amendment renders Mr. Trump ineligible to hold federal office because he “provided aid 23 and comfort to an insurrection” on January 6, 2021. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14.) Mr. Castro has filed a 24 motion seeking entry of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), followed by an expedited 25 preliminary injunction hearing on or before September 29, 2023. (Doc. 11.) Mr. Castro’s 26 motion for a TRO is denied. 27 The standards for issuing a TRO are identical to those for issuing a preliminary 28 injunction. Whitman v. Hawaiian Tug & Barge Corp./Young Bros., Ltd. Salaried Pension 1 Plan, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1228 (D. Haw. 1998). A plaintiff seeking a TRO must 2 establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 3 harm in the absence of immediate relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and 4 that a TRO is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 5 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 6 2009). These elements are balanced on a sliding scale, whereby a stronger showing of 7 one element may offset a weaker showing of another. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 8 Cottrell, 632 F. 3d 1127, 1131, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). The sliding-scale approach, 9 however, does not relieve the movant of the burden to satisfy all four prongs for the 10 issuance of a TRO. Id. at 1135. Instead, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a 11 balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a 12 [TRO], so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury 13 and that the [TRO] is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135. Like a preliminary injunction, a 14 TRO is “an extraordinary remedy” never awarded as of right, but “only upon a clear 15 showing that the [movant] is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. The movant 16 bears the burden of proof on each element of the test. Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. 17 Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 18 Though they share a governing standard, TROs and preliminary injunctions differ 19 in their purposes. A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo to avoid harm during 20 litigation. See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Accordingly, to 21 obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must show that, absent preliminary relief, he 22 will suffer irreparable harm before the case can be decided on its merits. In contrast, the 23 purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo pending a hearing on a preliminary 24 injunction motion if irreparable harm will occur in the interim. See Ariz. Recovery 25 Housing Ass’n v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., No. CV-20-00893-PHX-JAT, 2020 WL 26 8996590, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 14, 2020). To obtain a TRO, the movant therefore must 27 show that he will suffer irreparable harm in the relatively brief amount of time it 28 ordinarily would take the Court to resolve a preliminary injunction motion. 1 The Court denies Mr. Castro’s TRO motion because he has not made this more 2 demanding showing of irreparable harm. Mr. Castro argues that he “is already suffering 3 irreparable competitive injuries because [Mr. Trump] . . . is siphoning off votes and 4 contributions.” (Doc. 11 at 6.) But no presidential primaries or caucuses have yet been 5 held. None are scheduled before September 29, or even for this calendar year. Likewise, 6 Mr. Castro has not alleged or proffered evidence that Mr. Trump intends to file 7 nomination paperwork with Secretary Fontes on or before September 29, or that 8 Secretary Fontes would process such paperwork before that date. According to the 2023- 9 2024 Election Calendar published on Secretary Fontes’ website, Arizona’s presidential 10 preference election is scheduled for March 19, 2024, and his office will begin accepting 11 candidate nomination papers for that election on November 10, 2023.1 And as for 12 contributions, Mr. Castro has proffered no evidence that, were the Court to issue a TRO 13 now, Mr. Trump would not receive contributions or support at current levels, or that Mr. 14 Castro would receive more contributions or support than he is receiving now. The upshot 15 is that Mr. Castro has not carried his heavy burden of showing that the Court must take 16 immediate action—without hearing from the adverse parties—in order to avoid 17 irreparable injury before the Court can resolve his preliminary injunction motion. Instead, 18 the Court will resolve Mr. Castro’s preliminary injunction motion in the ordinary course 19 after hearing from the adverse parties. 20 IT IS ORDERED as follows: 21 1. Mr. Castro’s motion for a TRO (Doc. 11) is DENIED. The motion (Doc. 11) is 22 converted to a preliminary injunction motion. 23 2. Mr. Castro shall serve Secretary Fontes and Mr. Trump with a copy of his 24 preliminary injunction motion (Doc. 11) and this order by no later than 25 September 22, 2023, and file proof thereof with the Court. 26 3. Secretary Fontes and Mr. Trump shall respond to the preliminary injunction 27 motion by no later than October 6, 2023. 28 1https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2024_Election_Calendar_FINAL_Rev20230913a.pdf 1 4. Mr. Castro shall file his reply brief by no later than October 13, 2023. 2 5. A preliminary injunction hearing is set for 9:00 AM on October □□□ 2023, 3 before Judge Douglas L. Rayes in Courtroom 606, 401 W. Washington Street, 4 Phoenix, Arizona, 85003. 5 6. By no later than October 16, 2023, the parties shall jointly notify the Court in 6 writing whether (1) live evidence will be presented at the hearing or whether 7 the hearing will consist of oral argument on the paper record and (2) whether 8 they agree to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the final trial 9 on the merits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). 10 Dated this 18th day of September, 2023. 11 - 12 J _—S □□ a 13 Do . Rayes 4 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-