Ross v. Arenestos
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-05293
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ross v. Arenestos, Judge Hamilton denied Theresa M. Ross’s temporary restraining order request without prejudice because notice and emergency-relief requirements were not shown.
Theresa M. Ross’s request for a temporary restraining order was denied without prejudice; the order did not resolve the underlying case.
What happened
In Ross v. Arenestos, Theresa M. Ross asked the court for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to provide short-term protection before a full hearing. The opinion does not describe the underlying claim or the specific relief she sought.
The court found that Ross had not shown that she met the required notice rules or the conditions for obtaining an order without notice. She also had not shown likely success, irreparable harm, or the other requirements for emergency relief. The court noted that her complaint was still being reviewed and that it had not yet been established whether the case could proceed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Ross’s request without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ross v. Arenestos · No. 4:21-cv-05293
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 30, 2021
Background
Theresa M. Ross asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO), an emergency court order that may provide temporary relief before the opposing party can fully respond. The opinion states that Ross made the request on August 27, 2021. It does not identify the underlying claim or clearly state what relief Ross wanted.
Ross had sought permission to proceed without paying court fees. As a result, her complaint was subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the court to review certain complaints filed by people seeking to proceed without paying fees. A report and recommendation about that review had not yet been adopted or rejected.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) generally requires notice to the opposing party before a preliminary injunction may issue. A TRO may be issued without notice only when specific facts show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard, and the applicant or attorney certifies the notice-related efforts and reasons for proceeding without notice.
The court found that Ross had not shown that she satisfied the notice requirement in Rule 65(a)(1) or otherwise complied with Rule 65(b). The court also applied the factors for preliminary emergency relief: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. It found that Ross had not established those factors, including likely success or irreparable harm, because she had not made clear what relief she sought.
The court further stated that Ross had not yet stated a viable claim or established subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Because the complaint’s screening remained unresolved, it was not yet established that the case could proceed in federal court.
Disposition
The court DENIED Ross’s request for a TRO without prejudice. The opinion did not decide the merits of the underlying claims. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on August 30, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.