Olajide v. Newsome
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-08048
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Olajide v. Newsom, Judge Alsup denied Olajide’s temporary restraining-order motion because the alleged mistreatment occurred over two years earlier.
The ruling affected Oladapo Olajide’s request for emergency court-ordered relief; the court denied that request.
What happened
Oladapo Olajide filed an amended complaint and a new request for a temporary restraining order after an earlier complaint and request were dismissed for frivolousness. The amended complaint described alleged police mistreatment following a June 2017 traffic stop.
A temporary restraining order is emergency relief intended to prevent immediate harm. The court said a person seeking this relief must show likely success, likely irreparable harm without an order, favorable balancing of the hardships, and consistency with the public interest. The court concluded that the fact that the alleged mistreatment occurred more than two years earlier undermined any current likelihood of irreparable harm.
The court denied the temporary-restraining-order motion. Judge Alsup signed the order on December 24, 2019.
The detailed version
- Olajide v. Newsome · No. 3:19-cv-08048
- William Alsup
- Dec. 24, 2019
Background
After the court dismissed Olajide’s first complaint, temporary-restraining-order motion, and application to proceed without paying the filing fee because they were frivolous, Olajide filed an amended complaint and paid the filing fee. He also filed a new motion for a temporary restraining order.
The court said the new complaint largely repeated the earlier frivolous allegations. However, reading it generously, the court found that it alleged police mistreatment following a June 2017 traffic stop.
Court’s analysis
A temporary restraining order is emergency relief. The court applied the standard that a person seeking a preliminary injunction must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without preliminary relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that the injunction would serve the public interest.
The court focused on irreparable harm, meaning harm that cannot adequately be repaired later. It stated that the fact that the only alleged mistreatment occurred more than two years earlier undermined a current likelihood of irreparable harm.
Disposition
The court denied Olajide’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order did not decide the underlying allegations of police mistreatment on the merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.