Nazzal v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA TONY ELIAS NAZZAL CASE NO. 25-CV-5656-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER v. VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Tony Elias Nazzal’s “Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” Dkt. 8. Nazzal asks this Court to order the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide him with “immediate, emergency financial relief and expedited payment.” Id. at 2, 3. Nazzal previously filed a complaint alleging in part the Department has failed to disclose certain disability and benefits records. Dkt. 4. The purpose of a TRO is “preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing [on the preliminary injunction application], and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423 (1974); see also Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2006). For a court to grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff “must establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). When considering whether to grant this “extraordinary remedy, . . . courts must balance the competing claims of injury and consider the effect of granting or withholding the requested relief, paying particular

regard to the public consequences.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. While Nazzal appears to make an argument for a TRO, he fails to sufficiently provide a factual basis or legal argument that he is likely to prevail on the merits. He has also failed to show irreparable harm. The Court will regard Nazzal’s motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction, re-noted for September 8, 2025.

Dated this 12th day of August, 2025. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United S tates District Judge