United States District Court, E.D. California
L. Nunley United States District Judge
matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion for a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”) filed by
Plaintiff John Lamar Jenkins (“Plaintiff”). (Mot.
for TRO, ECF No. 3.) Due to deficiencies in Plaintiff's
submissions it is not clear whether the motion was filed
ex parte, but the TRO checklist filed in connection
with the motion suggests that was Plaintiff's intent.
(See ECF No. 3-1 at 2.) For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Factual and Procedural Background
April 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint. (ECF No. 1.) He
alleges as follows:
“JP Morgan Chase Bank engaged in Mortgage Fraud: The
Securitization Scheme that Collapsed the Housing Market. JP
Morgan Chase Bank even admitted in November of 2013 that it,
along with every other large U.S. bank had engage [sic] in
mortgage fraud as a routine business practice, sowing the
seeds of the mortgage meltdown. JP Morgan knowingly put me
into a . . . ‘Bad Loan' that spiked my interest
rate by 6%. They also placed me into an area that is upside
down and underwater (meaning the balanced [sic] owed exceeds
the current value of the home[)].
(ECF No. 1 at 5.)
filed the instant motion on the same day. (ECF No. 3.) He
indicates that a home he owns “is currently in active
foreclosure” with a “sell date” of May 17,
2017. (ECF No. 3-1 at 1-2.) He seeks a court order halting
any foreclosure or eviction proceedings. (ECF No. 3 at 1.)
same legal standard applies to both preliminary injunctions
and temporary restraining orders. Stuhlbarg Int'l
Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839
n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds,
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7 (2008). Preliminary injunctive relief 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 22 (citing Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)).
must show four things to receive a preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
First, Plaintiff must show that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.
Id. Second, Plaintiff must show that he is likely to
succeed on the merits. Id. Third, Plaintiff must
show that the balance of equities tips in his favor.
Id. Finally, Plaintiff must show that an injunction
is in the public interest. Id. Plaintiff must
“make a showing on all four prongs” of
Winter to obtain a preliminary injunction.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d
1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Ninth Circuit, courts
apply a sliding-scale approach. Id. Under this
approach, a preliminary injunction may issue where Plaintiff
has raised “serious questions on the merits” -
rather than a more complete showing that he is likely to
succeed on the merits - so long as the balance of hardships
tips sharply in his favor and he satisfies the other two
Winter prongs. Id.
motion fails both procedurally and substantively.
Procedurally, Plaintiff has not complied with Eastern
District Local Rule 231, which governs temporary restraining
orders. Rule 231 requires, among other things, that the party
seeking a temporary restraining order file the following
documents with the Court:
(1) a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining
order; (3) a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by
the motion; (4) an affidavit in support of the existence of
an irreparable injury; (5) an affidavit detailing the notice
or efforts to effect notice to the affected parties or
counsel or showing good cause why notice should not be given
. . .; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order with a
provision for a bond . . .; (7) a proposed order with blanks
for fixing the time and date for hearing a motion for
preliminary injunction, the date for filing the responsive
papers, the amount of the bond, if any, and the date and hour
of issuance . . .; and (8) in all instances in which a
temporary restraining order is requested ex parte,
the proposed order shall further notify the affected party of
the right to apply to the Court for modification or
dissolution on two (2) days' notice or such shorter
notice as the Court may allow.”
L.R. 231(c). Plaintiff has only submitted the first two items
and has therefore failed to satisfy Local Rule 231. His
motion may be denied on that ground alone. See Holcomb v.
California Bd. of Psychology, No. 2:15-cv-02154-KJM-CKD,
2015 WL 7430625, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015) (indicating
the Court had previously denied “plaintiff's motion