1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 CAMERON DOYLE CHURCH, Case No. 3:24-cv-00579-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 BARRY BRESLOW, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Plaintiff Cameron Church requests a preliminary injunction and temporary 11 restraining order for alleged constitutional violations related to ongoing state 12 court proceedings. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 8, and 9.) However, the Court is unable to 13 consider Plaintiff’s requests at the time because Plaintiff has not served 14 Defendants. 15 DISCUSSION 16 “Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, 17 the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni 18 Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd.,

(1987). Federal Rule 19 of Civil Procedure 4 provides the methods for serving a defendant named in a 20 federal lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Until defendants have been properly served 21 with the summons and complaint and may appear in the action, the Court has 22 no means to grant relief. 23 A court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the 24 adverse party or its attorney only if “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 25 complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage 26 will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and 27 (B) the [movant or their attorney] certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice 28 and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). “[T]he 1 || circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte [temporary restraining] order 2 || are extremely limited.” Reno Air Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. McCord,

, 1131 3 || (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck 4 || Drivers,

(1974)). An ex parte TRO “may be appropriate 5 || ‘where notice to the adverse party is impossible either because the identity of an 6 || adverse party is unknown or because a known party cannot be located in time 7 || for a hearing.” Id. at 1131 (citation omitted). 8 Plaintiff has not made such a showing. The Court therefore will not 9 || consider the merits of Plaintiffs applications until Plaintiff submits proof of 10 || service. Plaintiff may renew his request for relief after showing proof of service. 11 The Court reminds Plaintiff that failure to file proof of service by May 8, 12 |} 2025, may result in dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 12.) 13 |} II. CONCLUSION 14 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs motions for a preliminary injunction 15 |} and temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9) are denied without 16 || prejudice. 17 18 DATED: April 17, 2025 19 20 en Wasted

22 ANNER TRAUM 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28