Bayer v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Bayer filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order against the City and County of San Francisco. He asked the court to order the City’s employees to stay at least 10 yards away from him, communicate with him only by email and U.S. mail, and return his leather jacket.

Bayer asked that the order remain in effect until the City’s law-enforcement employees took police incident reports by email identifying him as the victim, arrests were made of the involved employees, and criminal proceedings were completed with a jury determining their guilt or otherwise.

Legal standard

The court stated that the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The applicant must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favors the applicant, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court described a temporary restraining order as an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of entitlement, and identified likely irreparable harm as especially important.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the extraordinary relief Bayer requested was not warranted. Bayer waited until November 30, 2023—more than one year after the City removed the case to federal court on November 23, 2022—to seek a temporary restraining order. He then waited nearly one month after the court denied his first motion to file the identical motion again. The court concluded that this substantial delay undermined Bayer’s claim that he would suffer irreparable harm without a temporary restraining order.

Disposition

The court DENIED Bayer’s second motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion addresses the request for temporary relief and does not state that the court decided the underlying claims on their merits.