1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELLY G. WILKINSON,

12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-01742-TLN-SCR

13 14 v. ORDER EL DORADO COUNTY HEALTH AND 15 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, et al., 16 Defendants.

17

18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Kelly G. Wilkinson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for a 20 Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 9.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 21 Plaintiff’s motion. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 28 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to “halt” a hearing regarding his parental rights under 3 Welfare and Institutions Code § 366.26 before the El Dorado County Superior Court on October 4 10, 2025. (ECF No. 9-1 at 2; ECF No. 9-2 at 3.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants have 5 scheduled the hearing to “permanently terminate [his] parental rights[.]” (ECF No. 9-1 at 2.) 6 Plaintiff originally filed this action on June 20, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On June 9, 2025, the 7 assigned magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days or file 8 a notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff eventually 9 responded to an order to show cause, (ECF No. 5), and requested leave to amend the complaint 10 (ECF No. 6), which the assigned magistrate judge granted (ECF No. 7). 11 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on September 30, 2025, alleging his daughter 12 was “kidnap[ed]” through the filing of a fraudulent petition, which was followed up by a 13 protective custody warrant. (ECF No. 8 at 14.) Plaintiff further contends he was compelled into 14 therapy, his home was unlawfully searched via a fraudulent search warrant, and his private 15 property was seized. (Id. at 14–15.) Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to an 16 unconstitutional gag order and was unable to communicate with his daughter. (Id. at 15.) 17 Plaintiff states he then sought to challenge “the Enterprise’s authority” which led to the 18 “retaliatory” escalation of proceedings in July 2025 when Plaintiff received a “Notice of Hearing 19 on Selection of a Permanent Plan” for October 10, 2025. (Id. at 15–16, 158.) Based on these 20 allegations, Plaintiff makes the following claims: (1) violation of civil rights under

1983; (2) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under

; (3) violations of the 22 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act under

(c), (d); (4) Monell 23 liability against a municipality; and (5) breach of contract. (ECF No. 8.) 24 On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 25 to halt the hearing set for October 10, 2025. (ECF No. 9.) 26 II. STANDARD OF LAW 27 For a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), courts consider whether Plaintiff has 28 established: “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable 1 harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] 2 that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

, 20 3 (2008). Plaintiff must “make a showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test. Alliance for the 4 Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,

(9th Cir. 2011). In evaluating a plaintiff’s motion, 5 a district court may weigh plaintiff’s showings on the Winter elements using a sliding-scale 6 approach.

at 1134–35. A stronger showing on the balance of the hardships may support 7 issuing a TRO even where the plaintiff shows that there are “serious questions going to the merits 8 . . . so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the 9 injunction is in the public interest.”

. Simply put, Plaintiff must demonstrate, “that [if] 10 serious questions going to the merits were raised [then] the balance of hardships [must] tip[ ] 11 sharply” in Plaintiff’s favor in order to succeed in a request for a TRO.

at 1134–35. 12 Eastern District of California Local Rule 231(b) also provides that “the Court will 13 consider whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction at an 14 earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary 15 restraining order.” Should the Court find such a delay, the Court may deny the requested TRO on 16 those grounds alone. E.D. Cal. L.R. 231(b). 17 III. ANALYSIS 18 Here, Plaintiff provides the Notice of Hearing on Selection of a Permanent Plan 19 (“Notice”) which indicates Plaintiff was personally served a copy of the Notice on July 10, 2025. 20 (ECF No. 9-2 at 4.) However, Plaintiff waited until four days prior to the scheduled hearing to 21 file the instant TRO. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff does not argue he received inadequate notice of the 22 hearing, nor does he explain why the last-minute request for relief was necessary. Instead, 23 Plaintiff appears to contend Defendants “deliberately created this compressed timeline.” (Id. at 24 2.) Without further explanation, this argument is unavailing. Plaintiff was served with the Notice 25 on July 10, 2025, but did not file the instant TRO until October 6, 2025. The Court finds Plaintiff 26 could have sought relief by motion for a preliminary injunction at an earlier date without 27 requiring last-minute relief via a TRO. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 231(b). Moreover, this inexcusable 28 delay discredits the allegation of irreparable harm if the hearing were to take place. Litinetsky v. 1 | W. Coast Servicing, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-03417-DC-SCR,

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2 | 17, 2024). Given this, the Court need not consider the remaining Winters factors. See Avila v. 3 | NewRez LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02264-TLN-CSK,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2024), 4 | appeal dismissed, No. 25-49,

(9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025) (finding similarly). 5 In sum, due to Plaintiff's undue delay in seeking injunctive relief without adequate 6 | explanation, the Court exercises its discretion under Local Rule 231(b) and DENIES Plaintiffs 7 | Motion fora TRO. See Wilkinson v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 2:24-CV-01416-TLN-AC, 2024 8 | WL 2330542, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2024) (collecting cases). 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: October 07, 2025 7, : Leh lly TROY L. NUNLEY 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28