United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL,
(ECF NO. 124)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Hucul's Motion to
Grant a Temporary Injunction During the Appeal Process
Pursuant to Rule 62(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 8. ("PI App. Mot.", ECF No. 124.) After
considering Plaintiffs arguments and the law, the Court
DENIES Plaintiffs motion.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(c) allows a party to move
the district court to issue, among other things, injunctive
relief pending an appeal. However, the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure govern only the procedures in the courts
of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 1. In addition,
"[w]hen these rules provide for filing a motion or other
document in the district court, the procedure must comply
with the practice of the district court." Fed. R. App.
P. 1(a)(2). Thus, the Court construes Plaintiffs motion as
one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), which allows
a district court to grant an injunction pending appeal
"from ... [a] final judgment that. . . denies an
any injunction, an injunction pending appeal is 'an
extraordinary remedy that should be granted
sparingly.'" Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey,
691 F.Supp.2d 1204, 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2010). "A plaintiff
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest." Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)
(citing Munafv. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008));
see also Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of
L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); Rey,
691 F.Supp.2d at 1207. In the Ninth Circuit, "serious
questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that
tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a
preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows
that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the
injunction is in the public interest."All, for the
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding that
this "sliding scale" approach survives after the
Supreme Court's decision in Winter). This is an
"extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such
relief." Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. To warrant
injunctive relief, irreparable injury must be more than
merely possible. See Midgett v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp.
Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2001). Rather,
the plaintiff must show "that he faces a real or
immediate threat" that he will suffer irreparable harm.
Id. Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction
carry a particularly "heavy burden" of proving
their entitlement to it. Earth Island Inst. v.
Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
Munaf 553 U.S. at 689 ("A preliminary injunction is
an 'extraordinary and drastic remedy.'").
25, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit against over thirty Defendants
for alleged injuries stemming from various events in a family
court case beginning in Michigan and continuing to
California, where it is currently pending in San Diego.
(See Compl. 29,  ECF No. 1.) Several Defendants filed
motions to dismiss, (see ECF Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 32, 33, 43, 48, 51, 59, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83), and the
Court granted these motions and dismissed Plaintiffs case
with prejudice, (see MTD Order, ECF No. 118). The
Clerk of Court entered judgment against Plaintiff and closed
the case. (ECF No. 119.) Plaintiff subsequently appealed the
Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit, where it remains
pending. (ECF Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123.)
now moves the Court for an injunction. Specifically, during
the pendency of his Ninth Circuit appeal, Plaintiff seeks
"a temporary injunction against the State of California,
the County of San Diego and their Department of Child Support
Services from suspending Mr. Hucul's brokers license, his
passport, confiscating any of Mr. Hucul's property
including IRS or State of California tax returns and from
making reports to any credit reporting agencies." (PI
App. Mot. 11, ECF No. 124.)
motion fails. To the extent his request is premised on the
claims of his initial complaint, which appears to be the
case, (see Id. at 4-9), the Court finds that,
consistent with its Order dismissing Plaintiffs case,
Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of those
claims. (See generally MTD Order, ECF No. 118
(assessing Plaintiffs claims and dismissing them with
prejudice).) Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate that there are at
least serious questions going to the merits of his case.
These failures are fatal to Plaintiffs request. See
Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Cottrell, 632 F.3d at
1135. And Plaintiff fails to discuss the other
Winter factors required for a preliminary
injunction. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion
for an injunction pending appeal.
reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for
an injunction pending appeal (ECF No. 124).