2:24-cv-02181
E.D. Cal.May 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Kelley Coelho filed a civil rights complaint against California State Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil and her Chief of Staff, claiming constitutional violations following her removal from a police press conference.
- Coelho alleged that after attending a June 2024 Turlock Police Department press conference, she was escorted out without cause.
- Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO), claiming ongoing retaliation, harassment, and harm to her reputation, business, and daughter by individuals allegedly connected to defendants.
- Relief sought included prohibiting Alvarado-Gil and associates from further harassing or making disparaging statements about Coelho, or having any contact with her or her family.
- The motion was filed nearly nine months after the original complaint, raising procedural issues regarding timeliness and notice.<br>- The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for findings and recommendation on the TRO request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRO procedural requirements (notice, delay) | Coelho did not address notice; sought urgent relief. | (Not addressed) | Denied for lack of notice and unreasonable delay. |
| Nexus between complaint and TRO relief | Harassment and intimidation claims are related to constitutional violations. | (Not addressed) | No nexus; new claims unrelated to original complaint. |
| Immediate irreparable harm | Alleged ongoing retaliation and harm. | (Not addressed) | Harm not sufficiently immediate, given the delay. |
| Standard for extraordinary relief | Claimed circumstances justified immediate TRO. | (Not addressed) | TRO is extraordinary; requirements not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets standard for preliminary injunctions, emphasizing likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (likelihood of success on merits is most important TRO factor)
- Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (ex parte TROs are rarely justified)
- Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (denial for failure to comply with local rules is within court’s discretion)
- Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (preliminary relief must relate to underlying claims)
- De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945) (temporary relief must be of same nature as the final relief sought)