Anthony v. Segura
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Marian Anthony filed a complaint and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order against Judge Daniel Segura, alleging constitutional violations and seeking to nullify prior orders. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the high burden required for an ex parte TRO by not providing the underlying order, explaining the facts, or justifying the lack of notice to the defendant.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a TRO and the request is hereby DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the heightened standard for ex parte TROs. The plaintiff failed to provide the specific order being challenged, did not articulate facts supporting irreparable harm or likelihood of success, and did not explain why notice to the defendant (a sitting judge) was inappropriate. Denial is supported by the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for ex parte TROs and applies it to the deficiencies in the plaintiff's filing (lack of facts, lack of the underlying document, and failure to justify ex parte relief). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a denial based on failure to meet the burden of proof.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAN ANTHONY, Case No. 24-cv-0458-BAS-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 1) 14 JUDGE DANIEL SEGURA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Marian Anthony’s Complaint and Request for a 18 Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 1.) Because the defendant in this case has not 19 yet been served, this request is made ex parte. 20 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success 21 on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 22 preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) 23 that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 24 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 25 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO 26 granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and 27 “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte 28 TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Here Plaintiff requests the TRO against a state-court judge to “declare . . . all prior 2 || orders a nullity, with no lawful enforcement.” (ECF No. | at 6.) Plaintiff claims Defendant 3 || Judge Daniel Segura “violated the US constitution, Article 3, and Federal Civil Rule 58.” 4 at 5.) Plaintiff claims Judge Segura did so when he issued an order “in vacation” and 5 ||““without governmental power.” (/d.) Plaintiff does not offer either a copy of the order at 6 ||issue or explain the facts giving rise to Plaintiff's claims. Further, Anthony does not 7 || provide a reason for why this Court should grant a TRO against the defendant without due 8 notice to the defendant to appear and defend against this action and Plaintiffs allegations. 9 || Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a TRO 10 |} and the request is hereby DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 /\ 14 || DATED: March 11, 2024 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9.