Case 2:13-cv-02662-TLN-DAD Document 5 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`James C. Maxey,
`
`No. 2:13-cv-02662-TLN-DAD
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ORDER
`
`Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S.
`Department of Homeland Security et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on a Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by
`
`Plaintiff and Petitioner James C. Maxey (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is a pro se litigant.1
`
`Plaintiff “petitions this Court for an emergency hearing and an order compelling the Federal
`
`Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Homeland Security [sic] immediately cease and
`
`desist the 24-hour surveillance of the petitioner.” (ECF No. 1 at 1:14–18.) Plaintiff names as
`
`Respondents the “Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
`
`George Bush I, George Bush II, Richard Cheney, and FBI agent Jennifer Silva.” (ECF No. 1 at
`
`2:3–6.)
`
`
`1 See Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Checklist, ECF No. 1-2 (checking box for “Filing
`party is acting in pro se”); but compare ECF No. 1 (identifying Plaintiff as “James C. Maxey,
`ESQ.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-02662-TLN-DAD Document 5 Filed 12/27/13 Page 2 of 3
`
`Plaintiff filed a similar action2 and request for an emergency hearing nine days ago before
`
`this Court in case number 2:13-cv-02620-TLN-DAD. This Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an
`
`emergency hearing. See Maxey v. The United States of America, No. 2:13-cv-02620-TLN-DAD
`
`(E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013).
`
`For similar reasons, Plaintiff’s Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order is also denied
`
`in this action. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Local
`
`Rule 231(c) with respect to temporary restraining orders, evidenced by his additional failure to
`
`complete the Court’s TRO checklist. (See ECF No. 1-2 at 1–2.)
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiff has not articulated why he could not have sought injunctive relief at
`
`an earlier date. See L.R. 231(b) (“In considering a motion for a temporary restraining order, the
`
`Court will consider whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary
`
`injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for
`
`temporary restraining order.”). Plaintiff alleges that he has been subject to 24-hour surveillance
`
`since the Bush Administration; he also alleges that medical procedures were performed on him
`
`while he was living in the United Kingdom, with no reference to time.3 Accordingly, the Court
`
`concludes that Plaintiff’s unexplained delay in bringing his Petition constitutes laches, he has
`
`unreasonably delayed in seeking injunctive relief, and his actions contradict the allegations of
`
`irreparable injury. See L.R. 231(b) (“Should the Court find that the applicant unduly delayed in
`
`seeking injunctive relief, the Court may conclude that the delay constitutes laches or contradicts
`
`the applicant's allegations of irreparable injury and may deny the motion solely on either
`
`ground.”).
`
`Finally, Plaintiff does not satisfy the stringent standard to justify ex parte injunctive relief.
`
`To qualify for a temporary restraining order, at minimum the moving party must demonstrate (1)
`
`a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, and (2) that the
`
`2 Based on Local Rule 123, the two actions are both assigned to the undersigned. (See Minute
`
`Order, ECF No. 3.)
`
`3 According to Plaintiff’s complaint in case number 2:13-cv-02620 some medical fraud and
`malpractice took place in 1976. It is not clear whether this is the same conduct that Plaintiff
`refers to in this action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-02662-TLN-DAD Document 5 Filed 12/27/13 Page 3 of 3
`
`lawsuit raises serious questions and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the movant’s favor.
`
`See Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1986); Regents of Univ. of Cal.
`
`v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 65. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
`
`519, 520–21 (1972), they are not immune from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ghazali
`
`v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s Petition fails to demonstrate a probability
`
`of success on the merits, a possibility of irreparable harm, or that this lawsuit raises serious
`
`questions of public interest with the balance of hardships tipping in his favor.
`
` Therefore, Plaintiff’s Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 27, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28