U.S. Public v. People in US

S.D. California

U.S. Public v. People in US

DecidedMarch 13, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-00369

StatusUnknown

This text of U.S. Public v. People in US (U.S. Public v. People in US) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

U.S. Public v. People in US, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. PUBLIC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-0369-BAS-VET

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 3) 14 PEOPLE IN U.S., et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Sandara Jenkins and Steven Cross, on behalf of the 18 U.S. Public, Request for a Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 3.) Because the 19 defendants in this case have not yet been served, this request is made ex parte. 20 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success 21 on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 22 preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) 23 that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 24 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 25 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO 26 granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and 27 “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte 28 TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). I Here Plaintiffs request the TRO to cease “domestic enemy attacks/acts of war on 2 ||[the] US Constitution (our government) and people until jury trials by [the] public 3 ||(democracy).” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) Plaintiffs claim “eviction, property rental agreement 4 ||cancelation, [and] theft” violate the Constitution. (/d. at 2.) Plaintiffs do not offer any 5 ||facts as to why all evictions and property rental agreement cancelations violate the 6 || Constitution. Nor do Plaintiffs offer a legal basis for this conclusion. Plaintiff also does 7 ||not provide a particular eviction or property rental agreement whose cancelation offends 8 Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide a reason for why this Court should 9 || grant a TRO against Defendants without due notice to Defendants, the entirety of the U.S. 10 population, to appear and defend against this action and Plaintiffs’ allegations. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a 12 || TRO and the request is hereby DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || DATED: March 13, 2024 Lin A (Ayphan 6 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. PUBLIC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-0369-BAS-VET

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 3) 14 PEOPLE IN U.S., et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Sandara Jenkins and Steven Cross, on behalf of the 18 U.S. Public, Request for a Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 3.) Because the 19 defendants in this case have not yet been served, this request is made ex parte. 20 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success 21 on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 22 preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) 23 that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 24 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 25 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO 26 granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and 27 “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte 28 TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). I Here Plaintiffs request the TRO to cease “domestic enemy attacks/acts of war on 2 ||[the] US Constitution (our government) and people until jury trials by [the] public 3 ||(democracy).” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) Plaintiffs claim “eviction, property rental agreement 4 ||cancelation, [and] theft” violate the Constitution. (/d. at 2.) Plaintiffs do not offer any 5 ||facts as to why all evictions and property rental agreement cancelations violate the 6 || Constitution. Nor do Plaintiffs offer a legal basis for this conclusion. Plaintiff also does 7 ||not provide a particular eviction or property rental agreement whose cancelation offends 8 Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide a reason for why this Court should 9 || grant a TRO against Defendants without due notice to Defendants, the entirety of the U.S. 10 population, to appear and defend against this action and Plaintiffs’ allegations. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a 12 || TRO and the request is hereby DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || DATED: March 13, 2024 Lin A (Ayphan 6 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

U.S. Public v. People in US, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-public-v-people-in-us-casd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack