Varner v. Clark County Department of Family Services

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 KHARI VARNER,1 Case No.: 2:25-cv-00646-APG-MDC

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 5 v. [ECF No. 2] 6 CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Plaintiff Khari Varner moves for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin Clark 10 County Family Court Judge Margaret Pickard from presiding over a hearing to terminate 11 Varner’s parental rights “until the constitutional violations alleged in [Varner’s complaint in this 12 case] are resolved.” ECF No. 2. I deny the motion for several reasons. 13 Varner did not comply with Local Rule 7-4 regarding emergency motions. Although 14 Varner generally describes the “nature of the emergency” in terms of potential loss of parental 15 rights, he does not state when the hearing he seeks to enjoin is scheduled to occur. LR 7-4(a)(1). 16 He thus has not shown that emergency relief is needed. Nor has he shown that such relief is 17 needed without notice to the defendants and an opportunity for them to respond. He has not 18 shown that he served any of them. He does not certify that he met and conferred to resolve the 19 dispute without court action, that he notified the affected people or entities, or that the nature of 20 the emergency precluded a meet and confer. LR 7-4(a)(3). And he does not provide the address 21 and telephone numbers of all affected parties. LR 7-4(a)(2). 22

1 The complaint lists minors K.L.V., K.V., and N.V. as plaintiffs. ECF No. 1. However, “a 23 parent may not proceed pro se on [his] children’s behalf.” Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024). ] Further, to qualify for a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a 2|| likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of 3|| hardships favors the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def: Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, under the sliding scale approach, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) serious questions on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiffs favor, and (4) an injunction is in 7\\the public interest. A//iance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). 8 Varner does not present any evidence, so he has not shown a likelihood of success on the 9! merits. Additionally, the person he seeks to enjoin (Judge Pickard) is not a party to this case. 10 I THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Khari Varner’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice. 12 DATED this 14th day of April, 2025. 13 (IEE 4 ANDREWP.GORDON. 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23