Kevin William Parker v. Michelle Ghidotti

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Dec 09, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON KEVIN WILLIAM PARKER, NO: 2:25-CV-0439-TOR 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MICHELLE GHIDOTTI, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11 Defendant.

12 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s pro se Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, Motion for Full Consideration of the Pleadings and Evidence, ECF No. 12, and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Freeze of All Actions on Property, ECF No. 13. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument.

17 The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and files herein, and is fully informed.

19 Plaintiff complains that his property has been foreclosed upon and seeks to stop the foreclosure and sale.

1 DISCUSSION 2 A temporary restraining order (TRO), “like a preliminary injunction, is ‘an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.’” M.R. v. Dreyfus, 735 F.3d 4 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 5 7, 24 (2008)). To prevail on their motion for a TRO, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue, (3) that a balancing of the hardships weighs in their favor; and (4) that a preliminary injunction will advance the public interest.

9 Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted). To demonstrate that he is entitled to a TRO, Plaintiff must satisfy each element. In evaluating the elements of a preliminary injunction, “a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 requires that the Defendant be served and have an opportunity to respond. Plaintiff has not served the Defendant.

16 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 1. Plaintiff’s pro se Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 18 Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.

19 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Full Consideration of the Pleadings and Evidence, 20 ECF No. 12, is DENIED.

1 3. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Freeze 2 of All Actions on Property, ECF No. 13. is DENIED.

3 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and furnish a copy to Plaintiff.

5 DATED December 9, 2025. iad 0. Keer <> United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRO