Coughlin v. McGillivrary
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-03420
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Coughlin v. McGillivrary, Judge Freeman dismissed the case without prejudice, denied a temporary restraining order, and terminated pending motions.
Zachary Barker Coughlin’s attempted civil-rights case was dismissed without prejudice, his temporary-restraining-order motion was denied, and the pending motions were terminated. Kevin McGillivrary was named as the defendant, but the case did not reach the merits of any claim.
What happened
Coughlin v. McGillivrary began when Zachary Barker Coughlin, a state prisoner, filed a document the court treated as an attempted civil-rights case. The court told him to file a proper complaint and a complete application to proceed without paying the filing fee, but he did not meet the deadline.
Coughlin also asked for a temporary restraining order. The court denied that request because he had not filed a proper complaint, had not shown legally recognizable claims, and had not shown that he tried to notify any potential defendant or explained why notice should not be required.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the case without prejudice for failing to file a complaint and pay the filing fee. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
The detailed version
- Coughlin v. McGillivrary · No. 5:24-cv-03420
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 5, 2024
Background
On June 6, 2024, Zachary Barker Coughlin, identified as a state prisoner, filed a 24-page document that the court construed as an attempt to bring a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed a motion seeking permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The clerk notified him that he needed to file a complaint on the court’s form and submit a complete filing-fee application within 28 days or face dismissal.
Coughlin later filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is an emergency order that may be issued before the opposing party has an opportunity to respond. The court explained that such an order requires specific facts showing immediate and irreparable harm, along with information about efforts to provide notice or reasons notice should not be required.
Rulings
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. No proper complaint had been filed, no defendant had been served, and Coughlin’s motion did not state that he had tried to notify any potential defendant or explain why notice should not be required. The court also concluded that he had not shown the required factors for emergency relief, including a likelihood of success on legally recognizable claims.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failing to file a proper complaint and pay the filing fee. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order did not bar a later filing. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.