Ma v. Densmore

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE

10 ROLAND MA, 11 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-1355-RAJ 12 v. ORDER DENYING FOURTH 13 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ESTHER PARK DENSMORE and RESTRAINING ORDER 14 WASHINGTON CARE SERVICES, 15 Defendants, 16 v. 17 WALDEN UNIVERSITY, LLC., 18 Third-Party Defendant. 19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Temporary 20 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. # 98. Having considered the 21 submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the 22 Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. 23 Plaintiff Roland Ma has moved for emergency injunctive relief four times now, 24 the instant motion being his fourth. In his first motion for a temporary restraining order 25 (“TRO”), Mr. Ma sought to enjoin Defendants Esther Park Densmore and Washington 26 Care Services from suspending Mr. Ma’s internship. Dkt. # 2. The Court denied that 27 1 motion. Dkt. # 36. In his second motion for a TRO, Mr. Ma sought to enjoin “Third- 2 Party Defendant” Walden University, LLC from expelling him. Dkt. ## 48, 49. The 3 Court denied that motion. Dkt. # 68. Mr. Ma then appealed the Court’s order denying 4 his second motion. Dkt. # 73. Weeks ago, while the second motion was still on appeal, 5 Mr. Ma filed a third motion for a TRO; the injunctive relief that he sought there was 6 unclear. Dkt. # 92. The Court denied that the third motion. Dkt. # 96. 7 The instant motion for a TRO is Mr. Ma’s fourth. Dkt. # 98.1 This motion 8 apparently “amends” the third motion. Id. The Court denied the third motion because it 9 shared “aspects of the case” with Mr. Ma’s second motion, which is currently on appeal. 10 Dkt. # 96. The Court explained that “assuming [the third motion] raises any grounds for 11 relief at all,” it must presumably be “based on the same complaint and sets of facts as the 12 previous two motions for a TRO. [Therefore], the ‘aspects of the case’ raised by [the 13 third motion] are identical to the ‘aspects of the case’ currently on appeal, over which the 14 Court currently does not have jurisdiction.” Id. 15 The Court’s previous holding remains: the Court lacks jurisdiction over the 16 “aspects of the case” involved in the appeal. To the extent that this motion (the fourth) 17 shares “aspects of the case” with the second motion, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 18 consider it. See Dkt. # 96. 19 That said, the instant motion seems to raise issues unrelated to those on appeal. In 20 the “Evidence to Consider” section of the motion, Mr. Ma offers scattered references to 21 the docket: allegedly forged documents (Dkt. # 21), an EEOC form that he completed 22 (Dkt. # 50), evidence that supposedly shows that he was falsely accused of committing a 23 crime (Dkt. # 90), and a proposed amended complaint with exhibits (Dkt. ## 92-1 to 92- 24 4). In the “Relief” section, Mr. Ma asks the Court to grant him leave to file his proposed 25 amended complaint and to enjoin Defendant Esther Park Densmore in several ways. Dkt. 26 1 The Court refers to the instant motion as either the “instant motion” or the “fourth 27 motion.” 1 # 98 at 7-8 (requesting an injunction enjoining Ms. Densmore from communicating with 2 Mr. Ma through any medium other than U.S. mail, from releasing any of Mr. Ma’s 3 “protected health information,” from “conducting any surveillance or background search” 4 on Mr. Ma, and from destroying potential evidence). These issues appear to be unrelated 5 to Mr. Ma’s second motion, which concerned Walden University’s expulsion of Mr. Ma. 6 The Court concludes that these “aspects of the case”—specifically, those raised by 7 the “Evidence to Consider” and “Relief” sections—are not involved in the appeal and 8 that the Court has jurisdiction to consider them. 9 Like a preliminary injunction, issuance of a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy 10 never awarded as of right.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). 11 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a party seeking a TRO must make a clear 12 showing (1) of a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) of a likelihood of suffering 13 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of hardship tips 14 in her favor, and (4) that a temporary restraining order in is in the public interest. Winter 15 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (articulating standard 16 for preliminary injunction); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 17 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that preliminary injunction and temporary restraining 18 order standards are “substantially identical”). 19 Mr. Ma fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Mr. Ma’s new 20 “Evidence to Consider” and “Relief” sections are completely untethered to any of the 21 claims in his complaint. Dkt. # 98. They do not explain why they are related to his 22 discrimination claims at all, let alone explain why they make him likely to prevail on 23 those claims. Because Mr. Ma fails to meet the first Winter prong, the Court need not 24 consider the remaining three. Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for 2 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. # 98. 3 4 DATED this 28th day of December, 2020.

5 A 6

7 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 8 United States District Judge 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27