Cheteni v. Vella
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-06286
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cheteni v. Vella, Judge Illston denied Freedom Cheteni’s renewed temporary-restraining-order motion because he lacked permission to seek reconsideration and showed no qualifying change.
Freedom Cheteni, the self-represented plaintiff, was denied a renewed request for a temporary restraining order. Malia Vella and the other defendants were not required to provide the requested temporary relief.
What happened
In Cheteni v. Vella, Freedom Cheteni, who is representing himself, previously sought a temporary restraining order and mandatory injunction. The court denied that request on January 7, 2025, finding that he had not shown a likelihood of success on his claims.
Cheteni filed a renewed request on February 3, 2025. The court treated it as an attempt to reconsider the earlier denial. It said he had not obtained the required permission to seek reconsideration and had not shown a significant change in the facts or law, new important facts, or a serious failure to consider the relevant information.
Judge Susan Illston denied the renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and canceled the scheduled hearing. The order did not decide the defendants’ upcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The detailed version
- Cheteni v. Vella · No. 3:23-cv-06286
- Susan Illston
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
Freedom Cheteni, the pro se plaintiff, previously requested a temporary restraining order and mandatory injunction. On January 7, 2025, the court denied that request after determining that Cheteni had not shown the required likelihood of success on the merits. The court later scheduled proceedings on the defendants’ anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
Renewed motion
On February 3, 2025, Cheteni filed a renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. Although he labeled the filing as involving a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a temporary restraining order based on new controlling law, the court determined that the filing sought reconsideration of the earlier denial of temporary relief. Cheteni had previously been denied permission to seek reconsideration of the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment, but he had not requested permission to seek reconsideration of the denial of the temporary restraining order.
Under Local Rule 7-9(a), a party must obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. The court also stated that, even if Cheteni had requested permission, it would have denied that request because he had not shown a material difference in fact or law, new material facts or changes in the law, or a manifest failure to consider the material facts and law as required by Local Rule 7-9(b).
Court’s ruling
The court found unconvincing Cheteni’s comparison to a temporary restraining order issued by another court concerning the suspension of federal financial assistance. The court said that comparison did not address the defendants’ stated reason for suspending funds for Cheteni’s school: that the school could not adequately verify its eligibility after being given an opportunity to do so. The court concluded that there had been no material change in the law relevant to Cheteni’s case.
Judge Susan Illston denied Cheteni’s renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. The court determined the motion was suitable for decision without oral argument and vacated the February 28, 2025 hearing. This order addressed the renewed request for temporary relief; it did not rule on the defendants’ upcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.