Green v. United States
- Joseph Spero
- 3:25-cv-06704
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Green v. United States, Judge Orrick denied James Conner Green’s request for an emergency restraining order.
The ruling directly affects pro se plaintiff James Conner Green’s request for emergency injunctive relief against the United States and the other people and groups identified in his motion.
What happened
In Green v. United States, pro se plaintiff James Conner Green asked the court for an emergency restraining order against numerous individuals and groups, including private security companies, churches, businesses, and a person with whom he had stayed at an emergency shelter.
The court said Green had not provided the required notice or explained why notice should be excused. It also said he had not identified an imminent, irreparable harm, relying instead on allegations of past harassment and assaults. The court further found that the requested order was too broad because Green had not shown that the people he identified were legally connected to the United States in a way that would allow the order to bind them.
Judge Hiam H. Orrick denied Green’s motion. The court reminded him that an amended complaint was due by October 2, 2025, to avoid dismissal without prejudice, and said it could not decide his other motions until he filed that complaint.
The detailed version
- Green v. United States · No. 3:25-cv-06704
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff James Conner Green moved for an ex parte temporary restraining order, meaning an emergency order sought without advance notice to the opposing party. He asked the court to restrain numerous individuals and groups, including people he said had impersonated law enforcement, private security companies, churches, companies and commercial properties he had visited, and a person with whom he had stayed at an emergency shelter.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standard for a preliminary injunction, which is the same standard used for a temporary restraining order. Green had to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of equities favored him, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.
The court first found that the motion did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). Because Green did not appear to have given the United States written or oral notice, he had to provide specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the United States could respond, and explain why notice should not be required. The court found that his motion did neither.
The court also found that Green had not alleged any irreparable harm that was likely to occur in the future. His references to being molested, harassed, bullied, and assaulted by private security companies concerned past conduct, while temporary restraining orders address imminent future harm. Because no irreparable harm could be inferred, the court said it could not conclude that Green was likely to succeed on the merits.
Finally, the court found the requested relief impermissibly broad. Under Rule 65(d), a restraining order may bind the parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, or other people acting together with them. Green had not shown that the people and organizations he identified fit within those categories in relation to the United States.
Disposition
Judge Hiam H. Orrick denied Green’s request for a temporary restraining order. The court also reminded him that he had to file an amended complaint by October 2, 2025, to avoid dismissal without prejudice. The court stated that it could not rule on his other motions until he filed an amended complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.