Olajide v. Newsome ( 2019 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 OLADAPO OLAJIDE, 7 Plaintiff, No. C 19-08048 WHA 8 v. ? GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 Defendants. Oa RARY RESTRAINING 11 TO 12 Following dismissal of the first complaint, motion for temporary restraining order, and 5 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis for frivolity (Dkt. No. 8), plaintiff returns with an 14 amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) and new motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 3 15 12), having paid the filing fee. Plaintiff's new complaint largely repeats the earlier frivolity, a 16 but generously read, does allege police mistreatment after a June 2017 traffic stop (Dkt. No. 11 3 17 at 4-6). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed S 18 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 19 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 20 Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). That the only alleged mistreatment is over two years 21 ago undercuts a current likelihood of irreparable harm. Plaintiffs motion for temporary 22 restraining order is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: December 24, 2019. 26 LLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE