1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 HARVEST CYCLE DAVIDSON, Case No. 3:25-cv-05479-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. 10 KIM M. SHOMER; FREEMAN LAW FIRM 11 PLLC,

12 Defendants. 13

14 I. ORDER 15 Plaintiff Harvest Cycle Davidson has moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO), 16 requesting various forms of relief against Defendants Kim Shomer and Freeman Law Firm 17 PLLC. Dkt. 16. Mr. Davidson asks the Court to prevent Defendants “from surveilling, 18 monitoring, approaching, or attempting to interfere with Plaintiff in any professional or personal 19 capacity.” Id. at 1. Davidson explains that he is a “recent Washington resident” now “employed 20 as a Route Relief Driver with Bimbo Bakeries.” Id. “Since the litigation began, Plaintiff has 21 experienced unease due to prolonged stares and potential indirect monitoring while performing 22 his job duties.” Id. Though Davidson concedes that the actions are “not overtly threatening, these 23 occurrences have caused distress and prompted this request for precautionary relief.” Id. 24 1 Most orders for emergency relief restrict a party from taking a certain action, but TROs 2 can also be mandatory in that they can order a party to perform an affirmative act or a specific 3 course of conduct. State of Alabama v. United States,

(5th Cir. 1962), aff’d

4 sub nom. Alabama v. United States,

(1962) (“Mandatory injunctions affirmatively 5 compelling the doing of some act, rather than merely negatively forbidding continuation of a 6 course of conduct, are a traditional tool of equity.”). Irreparable harms, as TROs seek to prevent, 7 are injuries “for which there is no adequate legal remedy.” See Nat’l Ass’n of Manufacturers v. 8 United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

, 569 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing East 9 Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump,

, 1279 (9th Cir. 2020)). 10 The standards that govern temporary restraining orders (“TRO”) are “substantially 11 similar” to those that govern preliminary injunctions. Washington v. Trump,

, 1159 12 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017). “To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a

13 likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of 14 preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and (4) that an injunction is 15 in the public interest.” Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom,

, 753 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) 16 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008)). The movant must make a 17 showing for each element of the Winter test. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,

, 18 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). 19 Mr. Davidson has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. See Geo Group, Inc., 20 50 F.4th at 753. Mr. Davidson explains in his motion that he is likely to succeed on the merits 21 because he “has filed detailed motions supported by documentation and witness declarations 22 demonstrating misconduct by the Defendants[.]” Dkt. 16 at 2. He maintains that the “strength of

23 the evidentiary foundation supports a likelihood of prevailing on at least some claims.” Id. For 24 the purposes of this motion, the Court does not dispute these statements. But, as the Court l explained in its order to show cause, Mr. Davidson has not shown that the Court has jurisdiction 2 over the case. Because the Court “appears to lack jurisdiction over [Mr. Davidson’s] claims, [he] 3 cannot demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.” Williams v. 4 || Dep’t of Just., No. 2:24-CV-05406-DDP (AJR),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 5 2024) (citing cases); Jama v. King Count[y] Judges, No. C21-1150RSL,

, at 6 *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2021) (“The Court is currently unable to ascertain the likelihood of 7 success on the merits because the existing complaint . . . suggests that the Court lacks subject 8 matter jurisdiction over at least some portion of his claims.”’). 9 Il. CONCLUSION 10 For these reasons, the motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. 16) is DENIED. The

ll Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party 2 appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

13 Dated this 25th day of June, 2025.

M “Co OS 15 Tiffany Cartwright United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24