Chadley Wayne Thames, et al. v. Mendocino Coast Humane Society, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-09341
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHADLEY WAYNE THAMES, et al., Case No. 25-cv-09341-WHO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER AND SCREENING COMPLAINT 10 MENDOCINO COAST HUMANE SOCIETY, et al., Dkt. No. 15 11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiff Chadley Wayne Thames has filed a second motion for a Temporary Restraining 13 Order, seeking return of his service dog. Dkt. No. 15. The motion is DENIED for the reasons 14 discussed below. 15 I. MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 16 A Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) “is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits, 17 but a device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before 18 judgment.” Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001). A TRO 19 may continue only until a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction can be heard. Pablo 20 Sequen v. Kaiser, 793 F. Supp. 3d 1114, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2025).1 21 The emergency Thames continues to identify is the return of his emotional support dog, 22 Kiah Bixsby Grey Wolf. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 8, 13, 15. However, Thames does not allege that Kiah 23 is still in the possession of any of the defendants, and according to a recent filing, Kiah is no 24 25 1 In addition, to obtain injunctive relief Thames must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the 26 merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction is 27 in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a 1 longer in the possession of defendant Mendocino Coast Humane Society (hereafter, “Humane 2 Society”) and may have been adopted by someone else. See Dkt. No. 16 at 9 n.2. Moreover, it 3 appears that Kiah was removed from Thames’ custody more than a year ago, in July 2024, as a 4 result of Thames being charged with a misdemeanor under California Penal Code 597.1(A) 5 “Keeping an Animal Without Proper Care.” See Dkt. 1-1. According to Thames’ filings and 6 documents filed by the City, of which I take judicial notice, that charge was dismissed in October 7 2024. Dkt. No. 16-2. This case was not filed and the emergency relief request made for a full 8 year thereafter, on October 30, 2025. 9 While the absence of Kiah from Thames’ life is undoubtedly very hard and has caused 10 Thames distress, his motion for a TRO and the emergency return of Kiah is DENIED. Given the 11 delay in seeking emergency relief, serious questions as to what relief, if any, is available given that 12 Kiah is not in defendants’ custody, and questions regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, 13 Thames is not entitled to emergency TRO relief. 14 II. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT 15 A court must screen and may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee if it 16 determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief 17 may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 18 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed pro se, is somewhat unclear. Construing the allegations and 20 claims liberally, Thames sues two sets of defendants: (1) Fort Bragg and its Police Department 21 (the “City”) and (2) the Mendocino Coast Humane Society. He alleges that in 2024, the City 22 illegally seized his vehicle and Kiah. He alleges that he was not provided a “property hearing” by 23 the City. He also alleges that defendant Mendocino Coast Humane Society is holding and has 24 refused to return Kiah to him. As a result, he alleges violations of his constitutional rights to due 25 process and equal protection under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th Amendments, and violation of the 26 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). He also asserts related state law claims including 27 conversion, wrongful withholding of property, and infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. No. 1. 1 records of which I may take judicial notice, that Thames was not provided a post-deprivation 2 hearing under California Penal Code § 597.1(f). See Dkt. No. 16-2. I am not deciding the issue, 3 || but Thames’ allegations regarding the denial of a post-deprivation hearing mean that his 4 Complaint cannot be dismissed as frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 5 The City defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 16, 17. That motion 6 || will be heard by me via Zoom videoconference on January 14, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. The parties do 7 || not need to show up in person at the San Francisco courthouse. The adequacy of Thames’ 8 Complaint and whether Thames has stated an actionable claim against the City defendants will be 9 || determined at that time. Thames’ opposition to the City’s motion to dismiss is due by December 10 || 22, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 10, 2025 .

.

William H. Orrick IS United States District Judge 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28