Guy v. Pizzuti

Background

Kenneth Carl Guy, representing himself, filed a motion for an emergency stay, temporary restraining order (TRO), and order requiring the defendants to show cause. He asked the court to preserve his current living situation for 14 days, require Central City Hospitality House to explain why it should not pay his living expenses, and require Newsmax Media, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. to explain why they should not compensate him for lost wages. The court denied the motion and all of these requests.

Guy’s original complaint alleged obstruction of justice, wire fraud, and constitutional claims against a “polygraph examiner” and possibly a former employer. The court says the complaint was unclear, was never served, and had been dismissed by Judge Sallie Kim with permission to amend after the court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead of promptly filing an amended complaint, Guy filed other lengthy submissions that Judge Kim struck from the docket. Guy later filed an amended complaint that repeated much of the original material, added allegations and defendants, and remained unclear. The amended complaint mainly asserted constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and 18 U.S.C. § 2520.

TRO ruling

The court explained that a TRO temporarily prevents conduct while the court considers a preliminary injunction. To obtain that relief, a plaintiff must clearly show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of the hardships, and consistency with the public interest. For an emergency TRO issued without notice, the plaintiff must also provide specific facts showing immediate and irreparable harm before the opposing party can respond, and the plaintiff’s attorney must certify efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required.

The court denied the TRO and show-cause requests. It said that, to the extent the amended complaint could be understood, it did not plausibly state a claim. The § 1983 allegations were directed at private actors and did not allege facts showing that they acted under color of state law, an essential requirement for such a claim. The court also said Guy had not shown a private right to sue under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which is a criminal statute. The remaining allegations of a conspiracy were conclusory and barely intelligible and did not make the clear showing required for emergency injunctive relief.

The court separately noted that Guy had not explained what efforts he made to notify the parties identified in the motion or why notice should not be required. It also stated that requests for damages were not appropriate in a TRO proceeding because monetary injury is ordinarily not considered irreparable harm.

Electronic filing privileges

The court terminated Guy’s electronic case-filing privileges. It cited his multiple frivolous filings, Judge Kim’s prior warning that the privileges could be revoked, and a new 30-page preliminary-injunction motion filed while this order was being prepared. The order states that Guy may not file additional docket entries without the court’s prior approval.

Disposition

The court denied the TRO and related show-cause requests and terminated Guy’s electronic filing privileges. This order addressed emergency relief and filing restrictions; it did not enter a final merits judgment on the underlying claims.