Rouse v. Abernathy

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 XEZAKIA ROUSE, Case No. 21-cv-05708-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL 9 v. ANSWER AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 RONALD HAYES ABERNATHY, Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 25 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s answer. (Dkt. No. 24.) The motion is DENIED as 14 moot because Defendant answered the Second Amended Complaint on May 2, 2022. (See Dkt. 15 No. 22.) 16 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying without prejudice his 17 motion for jury trial. (Dkt. No. 25; see Dkt. Nos. 18, 20.) The motion is DENIED as moot on that 18 issue because a jury trial has been scheduled for October 2, 2023. (See Dkt. No. 28.) 19 Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying without prejudice his 20 motion for injunction to prevent further harm. (Dkt. No. 25; see Dkt. Nos. 19, 20.) Plaintiff 21 asserts that Napa County and City of Napa officials have retaliated against him since he first 22 complained about corruption in 2013. Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing Napa officials from 23 harassing him, from executing warrants against him outside of Napa, and from surveilling him; 24 allowing Plaintiff to travel freely; and prohibiting Napa officials from communicating with him 25 about anything other than this case. (Dkt. No. 19 at 7–8.) 26 “On a motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must make a threshold showing of 27 four factors.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 994 F.3d 962, 975 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). 1 irreparable harm without relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) an injunction 2 || isin the public interest.” Jd. (cleaned up). Plaintiffs must make a showing on each factor. See 3 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, “[t]he 4 || elements of the preliminary injunction test must be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one 5 element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th 6 || Cir. 2012). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not 7 be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Jd. (cleaned 8 up). 9 Plaintiff has not met his burden on the four factors because he requests injunctive relief 10 against Napa County and the City of Napa, not Defendant. The County and City are not parties to 11 this lawsuit. Thus, Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits against the County and City, as 12 || he has not asserted any claims against them. Similarly, the balance of equities does not tip in 5 13 || Plaintiff's favor with respect to his requested injunction, as the County and City have no notice 14 || that an injunction is sought against them. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for 15 reconsideration on the issue of a preliminary injunction. 16 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 24 and 25. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: June 22, 2022 19 20 Pegpstio Sully ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28