Anthony v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Pro se plaintiffs filed an ex parte request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the County of San Diego and others, alleging ongoing harassment and obstruction by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. The court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the legal requirements for a TRO, particularly the need for specific facts showing ongoing harm and the justification for ex parte relief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Ex Parte Request for Temporary Restraining Order“the request is hereby DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor test from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the heightened standard for ex parte TROs from Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord. The order identifies specific deficiencies in the plaintiffs' request: the allegations of 'ongoing' harassment are not supported by recent facts (the most recent specific incident cited was February 3, 2025, and the request was filed March 4, 2025, but the court notes a lack of facts showing the actions are 'ongoing or even recent' in a way that satisfies the immediacy required for a TRO, and more critically, the evidence is 'bare' and unsupported by the cited 'Exhibit J'). The court also correctly notes the failure to justify why ex parte relief was necessary without notice to the defendants. The denial follows logically from the cited law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standards for a TRO and an ex parte TRO. It applies these standards to the specific facts alleged by the plaintiffs, noting the lack of supporting evidence (missing exhibit) and the failure to justify the ex parte nature of the request. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order denying a motion for emergency relief.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE Case No. 25-cv-0310-BAS-MMP JOHANESEN, 12 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR Plaintiffs, 13 EX PARTE TEMPORARY v. RESTRAINING ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 (ECF No. 4) Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ Marian Anthony (“Anthony”) and Jasmine 18 Johanesen’s (“Johanesen”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Request for a Temporary 19 Restraining Order (“TRO”). (Request, ECF No. 4.) Having carefully considered 20 Plaintiffs’ Request and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s TRO Request. 21 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success 22 on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 23 preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and 24 (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 25 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 26 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO to be 27 granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and 28 1 “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte 2 TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Here, Plaintiffs request the TRO to “prohibit[] [the San Diego Sheriff’s Department 4 from committing] further harassment, obstruction from filing any legal documents at any 5 court, or clerk of court, prohibiting any searches, seizures, and wrongful arrests of the 6 Plaintiff for a period of 5 years or until this matter is resolved by a Jury trail” (Request at 7 8.) 8 Plaintiffs’ Request does not fulfill Winter’s requirements. For instance, Plaintiffs 9 allege “[t]here is substantial evidence of ongoing harassment and unlawful actions by the 10 Sheriff’s Department that is overwhelming and extraordinary malicious in these above 11 instances” and that this shows “a pattern and high-potential of continued abuse without 12 strong medicine from this court being applied to arrest the misconduct,” Plaintiffs offer no 13 facts showing harassment or unlawful actions that are ongoing or even recent. (Id. at 7–8.) 14 Rather, Plaintiffs broadly assert that on February 3, 2025, one of the plaintiffs was “stalked, 15 harassed, and terrorized by San Diego Sheriff’s Department Deputies” when attempting to 16 file a “Brady Motion” in state court. (Id. at 5–6.) In support of these bare allegations, 17 Plaintiffs assert that an incident report was generated regarding the interaction, and 18 Plaintiffs cite to an “Exhibit J,” but no such “Exhibit J” is attached to either the TRO 19 Request or the Complaint. (See generally ECF Nos. 1, 4.) Plaintiffs similarly do not support 20 the bare allegations that in January 2025 the San Diego Sheriff’s Department was 21 “identified by conclusive digital security and confirmation by ‘confirmation’ by Internal 22 Affairs” as harassing, stalking, and profiling “the Plaintiff” (again, it is unclear to which 23 plaintiff this statement refers). (Request at 5.) 24 Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide a reason for why this Court should grant a 25 TRO against the County of San Diego without due notice to appear and defend against this 26 27 28 1 ||action and Plaintiffs’ allegations. Without strong support for the “extraordinary remedy” 2 ||of a TRO, the Court cannot grant it, and the request is hereby DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || DATED: March 4, 2025 yatta Bahar □□ 6 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 4 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _~ 2.