Patty v. Kuhnle

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-04392
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HERBERT T. PATTY, Case No. 25-cv-04392-NW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

10 THOMAS KUHNLE, et al., Re: ECF No. 2 Defendants. 11

12 13 On May 22, 2025, Plaintiff Herbert T. Patty (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought suit 14 against Defendants Heather Allan, Troy Benson, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Jay Boyarsky, 15 Judge Cynthia Chen, Tracy Fleming, Tamalca Harris, Judge Thomas Kuhnle, Sandip Patel, Jeff 16 Rosen, Judge Stuart Scott, Kalila Spain, Tyrone Wilson, Adam Wright, and Farrah Zarea 17 (collectively, “Defendants”). Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asks the Court, pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Defendants 19 from moving forward with two scheduled proceedings in Santa Clara County Court: (1) a criminal 20 trial setting and motion to quash hearing in People v. Herbert Theodore Patty (No. B2303008), 21 and (2) a trial related to a domestic violence restraining order issued against Plaintiff in Kalila 22 Spain v. Herbert Patty (No. 23FL002984). Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 2 23 (“Mot.”). 24 Having considered Plaintiff’s briefing and the relevant legal authority, the Court finds this 25 matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The Court DENIES 26 Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO. 27 I. LEGAL STANDARD 1 preliminary injunction. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) 2 (“[T]he legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially 3 identical.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An injunction is a matter of equitable 4 discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that 5 the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 6 (2008). 7 A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to 8 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 9 relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public 10 interest.” Id. at 20. The Ninth Circuit has applied a sliding scale approach to these factors, where 11 “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one 12 element may offset a weaker showing of another.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 13 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (“a stronger showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a 14 lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits”); Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 15 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (preliminary injunction may issue if the plaintiff demonstrated 16 serious questions going to the merits – which is a lesser standard than likelihood of success on the 17 merits – if the balance of equities “tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” and the plaintiff 18 establishes that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that an injunction is in the public 19 interest). 20 The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that there are very few circumstances justifying the 21 issuance of an ex parte TRO. Reno Air Racing Ass'n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th 22 Cir. 2006). Here, Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO was, in effect, an ex parte motion even though 23 Plaintiff did not title the motion as such. See Civil Local Rule 1-5(d) (defining “ex parte” as 24 “contact with the Court without the advance knowledge or contemporaneous participation of all 25 other parties”). Plaintiff stated in his motion that “in accordance with Federal Rule 65(b) that he 26 will hire process servers to serve” Defendants Judge Kuhnle and Judge Chen and “will send a 27 copy of the complaint and the request for the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to the County 1 any indication that Plaintiff has done so, nor has a notice of executed summons been filed. 2 Therefore, the Court considers the instant motion for a TRO as ex parte. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 First, and most fundamentally, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his 5 requested relief. Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin Defendants “from proceeding with the 6 following scheduled state actions:” (1) “the criminal trial setting and motion to quash hearing” and 7 (2) “the Domestic Violence Restraining Order trial.” Proposed Order, ECF No. 2-1. Plaintiff 8 explains that he “is concerned that Defendant Judge Thomas Kuhnle will continue to violate 9 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by denying Plaintiff access to relevant evidence and Brady 10 material.” Mot. at 1. Plaintiff further explains that Judge Kuhnle has informed Plaintiff that “he 11 intends to set the criminal case for trial” during the upcoming hearing. Id. at 2. Plaintiff 12 additionally raises concerns that he “will not have time to complete discovery to obtain 13 exculpatory evidence and is in jeopardy of losing additional parental rights” in the Domestic 14 Violence Restraining Order trial that is set for May 28, 2025. Id. 15 The Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request to enjoin the state court proceedings under the 16 Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which prohibits federal courts from “grant[ing] an injunction to stay 17 proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where 18 necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. 19 Plaintiff has not shown that any of the AIA’s exceptions apply here. See Master v. Rothbard, 20 2024 WL 4682317, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2024) (“Even where a plaintiff clearly and 21 unmistakably alleges violation of a federal right, ‘a federal court does not have inherent power to 22 ignore the limitations of § 2283 and to enjoin state court proceedings merely because those 23 proceedings interfere with a protected federal right.’”) (citing Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. 24 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 294 (1970)). 25 Second, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 26 the absence of preliminary relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Generally, Plaintiff’s concerns are 27 prospective; he contends that he is not or will not be treated fairly in the underlying state court 1 then Plaintiff's concerns may be addressed by the state appellate courts. Plong v. Coutts, 2023 2 || WL 3432134, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2023) (“To the extent that Plaintiffs believe that the state 3 || trial judge committed error, the harm is not irreparable because they can pursue their appellate 4 || rights.”). 5 The other Winter factors likewise do not favor granting Plaintiff's motion. Winter, 555 6 || US. at 20. Plaintiffs request for a TRO seeks to interfere with ongoing state court proceedings, 7 || which is not in the public interest. 8 || I. CONCLUSION 9 Because none of the Winters factors favors granting a TRO here, Plaintiffs motion is 10 || DENIED. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. «3 12 || Dated: May 23, 2025 OA. f ; 1 Noél Wise 14 United States District Judge

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