Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flores v. Rodham Clinton

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

November 3, 2016

XAVIER FLORES, Plaintiff,
v.
HILLARY DIANE RODHAM CLINTON; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

          ORDER (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT; (2) DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS; (3) DENYING MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER; AND (4) DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

          Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff Xavier Flores, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint, Application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), Motion for Restraining Order (“Motion for TRO”), and numerous motions seeking miscellaneous forms of relief.[1] The Complaint attempts to assert claims against the United States of America and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton seeking compensation based on Flores' prior work as “Acting U.S. President, ” pursuant to a “Tentative Work Agreement.” Because Flores' claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and do not otherwise state a claim for relief, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice, DENIES the IFP Application as moot, DENIES his Motion for TRO, and DENIES his remaining motions.[2]

         DISCUSSION

         Because Flores is appearing pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading' of pro se litigants.”) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)). The Court recognizes that “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court notes that, although he is proceeding pro se, Flores is more than familiar with his federal court filing and pleading responsibilities, given his numerous prior actions.[3]

         I. Motion for TRO

         A court may issue a TRO without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if the party requesting the relief provides an affidavit or verified complaint providing specific facts that “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A). Flores makes no attempt at satisfying this burden. He has not provided any specific, credible facts establishing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to anyone. Indeed, neither the Motion nor the Complaint establishes any plausible likelihood of irreparable injury. Flores also failed to certify in writing any efforts made to give notice to defendants or the reasons why notice should not be required before a TRO is considered or issued. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(B). Nor has Flores made any effort to demonstrate that notice is impossible or fruitless, as required for an ex parte TRO. Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that a TRO was improperly issued because notice to the adverse party was neither impossible nor would it render the action fruitless).

         Moreover, even if defendants did have notice of the TRO, Flores fails to meet the substantive burden to justify the remedy he seeks. The Motion for TRO states in full:

Due to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton['s] access to resources and her 30 years in office of which she has learn/network [sic] with a wide range of people. This restraining [order] will be in effect to all her associates, spousers [sic], co-workers, prior (U.S.S.S.) United States Service agents, etc. Restraining order is define [sic] no action and contact against Xavier Flores.

Dkt. No. 2.

         The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp., 99 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1247 (D. Haw. 1999). A “plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citation omitted). “That is, ‘serious questions going to the merits' and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Winter emphasized that plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief must demonstrate that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” 555 U.S. at 22; see also Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009).

         As discussed below, Flores fails to state either a claim upon which relief may be granted or a legitimate basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. In short, nothing in the Motion for TRO or Complaint demonstrates any past or imminent future injury to Flores caused by defendants sufficient to justify the relief sought. The allegations in the Complaint and Motion for TRO present no serious question that he is in danger of irreparable injury, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Alliance for Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. Accordingly, the Motion for TRO is DENIED.

         II. The Complaint Is Dismissed With Prejudice

         Upon review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Flores fails to establish this Court's jurisdiction over this matter and to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As discussed below, even liberally construed, the Complaint fails to state any discernible basis for judicial relief.

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.