UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
July 9, 2012
MAURICE DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING SECOND EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff Maurice Davis ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against the United States Olympic Committee ("Defendant"), in which he sought an ex parte temporary restraining 18 order ("TRO") "directing the United States Olympic Committee to let Plaintiff compete in the 19 Paralympic swim trials that will take place from June 14-16, 2012, at Bismarck State College." 20
ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") at 8-9. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered discrimination on the basis of race 21 and would be irreparably harmed in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. On June 12, 2012, 22 the Court denied Plaintiff's TRO for failure to comply with the procedural requirements governing 23 the filing of an ex parte TRO and for failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits. See 24 ECF No. 4. 25
On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to his Complaint, in which he renews his ex 26 parte application for a temporary restraining order. See ECF No. 5. Plaintiff appends four 27 additional pages of factual allegations and argument to a copy of his original Complaint, in further 28 support of his original request for a TRO. However, the additional allegations and argument do not show a likelihood of success on the merits for the reasons discussed in the Order denying 2 Plaintiff's first ex parte request for a TRO. See ECF No. 4 at 2-3. 3
Moreover, Plaintiff requests the same relief as before, i.e., "[f]or an immediate temporary 4 restraining order directing the United States Olympic Committee to let Plaintiff compete in the 5 Paralympic swim trials that will take place from June 14-16, 2012, at Bismarck State College." 6
ECF No. 5 at 12. The event that Plaintiff seeks to enjoin has already occurred. Because Plaintiff 7 did not file his amended ex parte request for a TRO until July 3, 2012, seventeen days after the 8 Paralympic swim trials allegedly transpired, Plaintiff cannot show that he will be irreparably 9 harmed in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. 10
Accordingly, Plaintiff's second request for a TRO is DENIED for failure to show a 11 likelihood of success on the merits and for mootness.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.