Conte v. Willick

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00439
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 WILLIAM D. CONTE, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00439-GMN-DJA 5 v. 6 ORDER MARSHAL WILLICK, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Emergency Hearing, (ECF No. 21), filed by 10 Plaintiff Wayne D. Conte. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes 11 his Motion1 as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction because he is seeking injunctive relief in the 12 form of an order preventing OPM money from being sent to Jesusa E. Conte. 13 Under Local Rule 7-4, “[w]ritten requests for judicial assistance in resolving an 14 emergency dispute must be titled 'Emergency Motion' and be accompanied by a declaration 15 setting forth the nature of the emergency.” See D. Nev. Local R. 7-4(a)(1). In his Motion, 16 Plaintiff requests emergency relief, but does not include a declaration setting forth the nature of 17 the emergency as is required under LR 7-4. Further, Plaintiff fails to explain why he will suffer 18 irreparable harm without emergency relief. The only identifiable harm in his motion is 19 monetary harm. “Typically, monetary harm does not constitute irreparable harm.” Cal 20 Pharmacists Ass'n v. Maxwell–Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2009). “Economic damages 21 are not traditionally considered irreparable because the injury can later be remedied by a 22 damage award.” Id. at 852. Because Plaintiff does not include a declaration setting forth the 23 nature of the emergency, and he has failed to show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 24

25 1 See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 1 || without injunctive relief, the Court declines to expedite briefing addressing Plaintiff's Motion. 2 || The Court will address the pending Motions in due course. 3 Further, the Court finds that there are compelling reasons to seal Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 to 4 || the Motion for Emergency Hearing. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 473 F.3d 5 |{ 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court therefore orders that Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 should be filed 6 || separately under seal. The Motion, other than Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, should be filed separately 7 || and unsealed. 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 to the Motion for Emergency 10 || Hearing, (ECF No. 21), must be filed under seal, and the rest of the Motion must be unsealed. 11 || The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 separately under seal and file 12 || the Motion for Emergency Hearing, excluding Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, not under seal. 13 Dated this 25 day of June, 2025. 14 Yj, Gloria M. MaWarro, District Judge 16 United Sl District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2