U.S. Public v. People in US

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA U.S. PUBLIC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-0369-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 3) PEOPLE IN U.S., et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Sandara Jenkins and Steven Cross, on behalf of the U.S. Public, Request for a Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 3.) Because the defendants in this case have not yet been served, this request is made ex parte.

20 For a court to grant a TRO, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 24 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. For a TRO granted ex parte, or without notice to the opposing party, the burden is even higher and “courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006).

I Here Plaintiffs request the TRO to cease “domestic enemy attacks/acts of war on ||[the] US Constitution (our government) and people until jury trials by [the] public ||(democracy).” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) Plaintiffs claim “eviction, property rental agreement ||cancelation, [and] theft” violate the Constitution. (/d. at 2.) Plaintiffs do not offer any ||facts as to why all evictions and property rental agreement cancelations violate the || Constitution. Nor do Plaintiffs offer a legal basis for this conclusion. Plaintiff also does ||not provide a particular eviction or property rental agreement whose cancelation offends 8 Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide a reason for why this Court should || grant a TRO against Defendants without due notice to Defendants, the entirety of the U.S. 10 population, to appear and defend against this action and Plaintiffs’ allegations.

11 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in requesting this Court grant a || TRO and the request is hereby DENIED.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 || DATED: March 13, 2024 Lin A (Ayphan 6 17 United States District Judge ~_9.