Done v. Sonoma County Junior College District

Background

Stephen Eric Done, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sonoma County Junior College District. He alleges that the District violated his due-process rights by terminating his employment based on unsubstantiated accusations. He seeks reinstatement to the job from which he was terminated.

Done moved for a temporary restraining order, asking for temporary reinstatement to full-time employment. The opinion states that the District terminated him in 2000 and that the District issued an “exoneration letter” in October 2021. Done filed the lawsuit in December 2025.

Temporary restraining order

The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. It gave several reasons:

- There was no indication that Done had given the District notice of his request for emergency relief, and he had not explained why notice could not or should not have been given. - Done had not established a need for emergency relief. The termination occurred more than twenty years earlier, and even the October 2021 letter was issued more than four years before the lawsuit. - Done had not shown irreparable injury. The court stated that the loss of employment and income generally does not constitute irreparable injury. - Because Done sought a mandatory temporary restraining order requiring temporary reinstatement, the request received stricter scrutiny. - The court concluded that Done was unlikely to succeed on the merits because his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 appeared barred by its two-year limitations period. The court compared that period with the 2000 termination, the October 2021 letter, and the December 2025 filing date.

The order denied the temporary restraining order; it did not enter an order reinstating Done.

Sealing request

The court denied Done’s motion to seal his complaint and temporary-restraining-order papers. Although human-resources information can include confidential information, the court found that the information at issue did not warrant sealing. The Clerk was directed to ensure that those materials were publicly filed.

Application to proceed without paying the filing fee

The court denied Done’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because he did not financially qualify. The court stated that, if Done wishes to pursue the lawsuit, he must pay the filing fee by January 21, 2026. He must also timely serve the summons and complaint on the District. The order cited the federal service rule providing that an action may be dismissed if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, subject to the rule’s provisions concerning notice and good cause.

Disposition

The court denied Done’s motion for a temporary restraining order, denied his application to proceed without paying the filing fee, and denied his motion to seal. The order states that it disposes of Docket Nos. 1 and 3. It does not state that the lawsuit itself was dismissed.