1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JOSEPH DALE YOUNG, Case No. 5:25-cv-07838-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

10 NICOLE SHELDON, et al., [Re: ECF Nos. 13, 18] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Joseph Dale Young’s motion for a temporary 14 restraining order seeking to prohibit Defendants from requiring him to enroll in a Sober Living 15 Environment (“SLE”) as a condition of his probation or be remanded. ECF No. 13 (“Mot.”). 16 Mr. Young filed a duplicate motion, see ECF No. 18, and the Court notified the Parties that it 17 would consider both motions as a single motion for a temporary restraining order, see ECF No. 19. 18 Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 22 (“Opp.”). For the reasons below, the Court DENIES 19 the motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Mr. Young initiated this action against Defendant Nicole Sheldon in her official capacity 22 as a probation officer and the County of Santa Cruz on September 12, 2025, by filing a complaint 23 asserting claims for negligence and deprivation of constitutional rights under

. 24 ECF No. 1. In the complaint, Mr. Young alleges that Ms. Sheldon “negligently left [his] vehicle 25 unlocked while [he] was already in custody for a controversial probation violation” and as a 26 consequence, his vehicle was broken into.

¶¶ 7–8. Mr. Young filed this motion on 27 November 10, 2025, alleging that Defendants retaliated against him for bringing this action by 1 November 21, 2025.” Mot. at 2. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 4 issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.,

, 5 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft,

, 6 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary 7 remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 8 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

(2008). A plaintiff seeking 9 emergency injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that 10 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of 11 equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter,

. “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to the merits—a lesser 13 showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if 14 the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the other two Winter factors are 15 satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber,

(9th Cir. 2014) (internal 16 quotation marks and citations omitted). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 The Court finds that Mr. Young has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that he is 19 likely to suffer irreparable harm and that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 20 First, Mr. Young has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. In his motion, 21 Mr. Young argues that “[t]he sudden threat of custody or new conditions shortly after Plaintiff 22 served his complaint plausibly indicates retaliatory motive.” Mot. at 3. Merely alleging that 23 Defendants imposed a new probation condition on him following his filing of this suit, however, is 24 insufficient to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, in opposition to 25 Mr. Young’s motion, the District Attorney and probation officer that allegedly imposed this 26 condition on him filed sworn affidavits attesting that neither of them had even heard of this 27 lawsuit until after Mr. Young filed his motion for a temporary restraining order. See 1 further stated that he “[a]t no time . .. made such a representation” or “made any insinuation 2 and/or inferences to [Mr. Young] that he would be remanded into custody if he was not placed in a 3 SLE by November 21, 2025.” Lesniak Decl. 4. The Court finds that Mr. Young has failed to 4 || present any evidence to support his theory and has failed to meet the likelihood of success on the 5 || merits requirement. 6 Second, Mr. Young does not plausibly allege irreparable harm. While Mr. Young alleges 7 that he has been threatened with “[l]oss of access to the courts and chilling of First Amendment 8 || activity,” he has not made any factual allegations that he has been placed at imminent risk of any 9 such injury. As mentioned above, the probation officer has filed a sworn statement that he made 10 || no such representation or insinuation to Mr. Young. Mr. Young accordingly has not made the 11 requisite showing of irreparable harm necessary for the Court to enter injunctive relief. 12 Having concluded that Mr. Young has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the 13 merits or irreparable harm, the Court need not reach the remainder of the Winter factors. See 14 || Pimentel v. Dreyfus,

(9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]t an irreducible minimum the 3 15 moving party must demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits, or questions serious enough 16 || to require litigation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2 17 || IV. ORDER Z 18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. This 19 Order is without prejudice to Mr. Young filing a motion for preliminary injunction that may be 20 || heard upon proper notice to Defendants and on the Court’s regular calendar. This order terminates 21 ECF No. 13 and ECF No. 18. 22 23 Dated: November 18, 2025

ETH LABSON FREEMAN 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28