(PS) Ahmadzai v. County of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHIBULLAH AHMADZAI, Case No. 2:25-cv-02625-DC-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (ECF No. 7) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Mohibullah Ahmadzai’s ex parte motion for a 18 temporary restraining order (“TRO”). 1 (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff is appearing without 19 counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court submits the motion upon the record 20 and briefs on file. 21 For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for a 22 TRO be DENIED. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Allegations2 3 Plaintiff Mohibullah Ahmadzai filed a Complaint against Defendants County of 4 Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff, City and County of San Francisco, San 5 Francisco County Sheriff, and Does 1-20. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff alleged claims under 6 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 22-24. Plaintiff seemed to only raise Monell claims against 7 Sacramento County and the City and County of San Francisco, despite naming all 8 Defendants. Id. at 24. Plaintiff further alleged negligence and intentional infliction of 9 emotional distress against all defendants. Id. at 25-26. Plaintiff further alleged violations 10 of the California Constitution under Article I, Sections 1, 7, and 13 and violations of the 11 Bane Act under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 against all Defendants. Id. at 26-28. 12 Plaintiff’s allegations are described in further detail in the order and findings and 13 recommendations screening the Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) 14 B. Procedural Posture 15 On September 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the City and County of 16 San Francisco, County of Sacramento, Sheriff of Sacramento County, and Sheriff of San 17 Francisco. (ECF No. 1.) On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in 18 forma pauperis as well as a request for United States Marshals to serve Defendants. 19 (ECF Nos. 2 and 3.) On January 5, 2026, the Court issued an order denying without 20 prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and denying as premature 21 Plaintiff’s request for service. (ECF No. 4.) The Order directed Plaintiff to pay the filing 22 fee or file a complete and signed application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 23 days. Id. On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 (ECF No. 5.) 25 26 2 These facts primarily derive from the complaint (ECF No. 1), which are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. 27 Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of any conclusory factual allegations or legal conclusions. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 28 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 On April 2, 2026, the Court issued an order and findings and recommendations 2 granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, providing Plaintiff 60 days from 3 the date of the order to retain counsel, and recommending Plaintiff’s California 4 Constitutional claims be dismissed without leave to amend; recommending Plaintiff’s 5 Section 1983, Monell, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Bane Act 6 claims against all Defendants be dismissed with leave to amend; and allowing for 7 Plaintiff’s negligence claim to proceed. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was provided 30 days from 8 the date of the order to file an amended complaint on his Section 1983, Monell, 9 intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Bane Act claims. Id. 10 On April 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and a motion for a 11 temporary restraining order. (ECF Nos. 7, 9.) As of the date of this order, findings and 12 recommendations to dismiss the first Complaint are still pending before the District 13 Judge. See Docket. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 15 Plaintiff moves ex parte for a TRO pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 65 against all Defendants. The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as the standard 17 for issuing a preliminary injunction, which requires the plaintiff to “establish that he is 18 likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 19 of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 20 in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 21 Because the first factor “is a threshold inquiry and is the most important factor,” a “court 22 need not consider the other factors” if a movant fails to show a likelihood of success on 23 the merits. Baird v. Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks 24 and citations omitted). 25 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right,” 26 and may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 27 Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 24 (citation omitted). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that 28 irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” 1 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff’s TRO is based on a filing styled as an amended complaint and seeks 4 relief in the form of enjoining individuals Daniel Espinoza, Shante Williams, Janae 5 Galovich, the County of Sacramento, and City and County of San Francisco “from 6 engaging in conduct that threatens Plaintiff’s safety.” TRO at ¶ 22 (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff 7 also seeks injunctive relief “requiring Defendants to refrain from actions or omissions that 8 allow ongoing disturbances, intimidation, or unsafe conditions to persist in and around 9 Plaintiff’s residence and during Plaintiff’s travel…” Id. at ¶ 23. 10 A. Compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) permits the court to issue a TRO without 12 notice to the adverse party only if (1) specific facts in the affidavit or underlying pleading 13 show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the 14 opposing party may be heard; and (2) the movant certifies in writing efforts made to give 15 notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). This 16 Court's Local Rules also set forth certain procedural mandates for a temporary 17 restraining order to issue, including that the movant provide the following documents: (1) 18 a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining order; (3) a brief on the relevant legal 19 issues; (4) an affidavit to support the existence of irreparable harm; (5) an affidavit 20 detailing the notice or efforts undertaken or showing good cause why notice should not 21 be given; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order and provision for bond; (7) a 22 proposed order with blank for fixing time and date for a hearing; and (8) where a 23 temporary restraining order is requested ex parte, the proposed order should also notify 24 the affected parties of the right to apply to the Court for modification or dissolution on two 25 (2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as the Court may allow. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 26 231(c). 27 Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient because Plaintiff does not provide 28 reasons why notice of his motion to Defendants should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. 1 P. 65(b)(1)(B); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(c)(5); TRO. To issue a TRO without notice to 2 Defendants as the adverse parties, Rule 65(b)(1) requires that specific facts in the 3 affidavit or underlying pleading show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 4 damage will result before the opposing party may be heard. “Courts turn to the facts to 5 determine whether irreparable harm is likely.” Johnson v. California, 2024 WL 4766206, 6 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2024). Despite Plaintiff’s assertions in his TRO checklist, there is no 7 separate affidavit detailing notice, efforts to effect notice, or showing why it should not be 8 given. Courts regularly deny TROs for failing to comply with the stringent requirements of 9 Rule 65(b)(1), including those sought by pro se plaintiffs. See Reno Air Racing Ass'n, Inc. 10 v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (“courts have recognized very few 11 circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO”); Abdel-Malak v. Doe, 2020 12 WL 5775818, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) (denying TRO sought by pro se plaintiff for 13 failure to satisfy Rule 65(b)’s “strict requirements”); Seymour v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 2010 14 WL 3385994, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010) (same); Roman v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 15 2010 WL 3489962, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2010) (same). 16 The TRO also lacks a proposed order. See TRO. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 17 the Local Rules’ requirements for TROs is sufficient justification to deny the motion. See 18 Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial 19 of a motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district 20 court’s discretion.”); Nible v. Macomber, 2024 WL 2133319, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 21 2024) (denying TRO sought by pro se plaintiff as procedurally deficient). Plaintiff has not 22 complied with the requirements of Local Rule 231(c)(5)-(8). 23 B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 24 Although Plaintiff’s TRO is based on a filing styled as a First Amended Complaint, 25 a judgment order affirming the Court’s findings and recommendations regarding the 26 original Complaint has not been signed. Therefore, there is presently no operative 27 complaint to this action, and Plaintiff’s motion must also be denied. See Carnero v. Elk 28 Grove Financial, 2017 WL 1315575, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017) (denying a TRO 1 | where there was no operative complaint). 2 Also, to the extent Plaintiff's allegations could be based on his negligence claim in 3 | the original Complaint, Plaintiff does not differentiate his requests for relief by cause of 4 | action. Since the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's remaining claims in the original 5 | Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to show likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, the 6 | Court will deny Plaintiffs request for a TRO. 7 | IV. CONCLUSION 8 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for a 9 | TRO (ECF No. 7) be DENIED. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 12 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 13 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 14 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 15 || reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 16 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 17 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 18 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 || Dated: May 5, 2026 C i s a1 CHI SOO KIM 99 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 || 7, ahma.2625.25 25 26 27 28