Smith v. Cathcart

United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington · March 18, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-00075-MKD

Summary

This United States District Court order resolves five pending motions filed by a pro se plaintiff. The court denies the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for discovery, citing lack of service on defendants and failure to meet procedural standards. The court grants the motion for electronic case filing authorization and dismisses two other motions as moot following the filing of an amended complaint.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington
Writing for the Court
Mary K. Dimke
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Decision date
March 18, 2025
Docket number
2:25-cv-00075-MKD
Procedural posture
Plaintiff filed several motions; the court denied the TRO and discovery motions, granted electronic filing authorization, and denied other motions as moot.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

injunctionscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the statutory requirements for a temporary restraining order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
  2. Whether the plaintiff’s motion for discovery should be granted despite lack of service on defendants.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to electronic case filing authorization.
  4. Whether the motion to correct filing is moot.

Holdings

  1. The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to certify notice efforts and did not show the required likelihood of success on the merits.
  2. The motion for discovery was denied because the plaintiff had not effected service on the defendants.
  3. The court granted the motion for electronic case filing authorization, finding good cause.
  4. The motion to correct filing was denied as moot because the plaintiff had already filed an amended complaint.

Key quotations

A movant must establish (1) likely to succeed on the merits, (2) likely to suffer irreparable harm, (3) the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

Factual background

Alvanique K. Smith, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint but had not served the defendants. She sought a temporary restraining order and other relief without providing notice or certification required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed the complaint pro se on March 3, 2025, and subsequently filed motions for a temporary restraining order, expedited consideration, discovery, electronic case filing authorization, and correction of filing. Defendants had not been served.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…