Mikal Cordova Harrison v. Judge Monica K. Cary, in Her Personal and Official Capacities, and Tarrell Harrison, Jr., in His Individual Capacity

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denies Mikal Cordova Harrison’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent enforcement of King County Superior Court family-law orders. The court concludes that Harrison failed to satisfy the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and did not show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also directs Harrison to show cause within 21 days why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing possible application of the Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines and judicial immunity.

Holdings

1. The motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order was properly denied because Harrison failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), including the requirements concerning specific facts showing immediate and irreparable injury and written certification regarding notice.
2. Harrison failed to meet her burden for temporary injunctive relief because she did not meaningfully address whether she was likely to succeed on the merits.
3. The court denied emergency relief because Harrison had not shown a likelihood of success, and identified Rooker-Feldman, possible Younger abstention, and judicial immunity as doctrines that appeared to preclude some or all claims; the court did not finally resolve the applicability of Younger.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Harrison satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)'s requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order.
2. Whether Harrison demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.
3. Whether doctrines including Rooker-Feldman and judicial immunity appeared to foreclose some or all of Harrison's claims.
4. Whether Harrison should be ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

other