Filed: Jun. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Docket Nos. 1, 2 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff Michelle Jones filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, seeking an order that Defendant American Board of Pediatrics be required to permit Ms. Jones to take the October 2016 Board Certification Exam. Docket No. 1 (TRO App.). Ms. Jones has also filed an application to proceed
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Docket Nos. 1, 2 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff Michelle Jones filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, seeking an order that Defendant American Board of Pediatrics be required to permit Ms. Jones to take the October 2016 Board Certification Exam. Docket No. 1 (TRO App.). Ms. Jones has also filed an application to proceed ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
Docket Nos. 1, 2
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff Michelle Jones filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, seeking an order that Defendant American Board of Pediatrics be required to permit Ms. Jones to take the October 2016 Board Certification Exam. Docket No. 1 (TRO App.). Ms. Jones has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 2 (IFP App.).
The Court DENIES without prejudice Ms. Jones's motion for a TRO. First, Ms. Jones has not filed a complaint. Thus, there is no predicate for the motion, and the Court cannot determine if there is proper basis for jurisdiction and venue before this Court, or whether Ms. Jones's claims have sufficient merit to support issuing a TRO.1 Second, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs have satisfied Local Rule 65-1, which requires that "counsel applying for the temporary restraining order must deliver notice of such motion to opposing counsel or party." Plaintiffs do not state that they have served the complaint (which again, was not filed before this Court) on the American Board of Pediatrics, or provided them with any notice of the instant motion.2
The Court also DENIES Ms. Jones's application to proceed in forma pauperis. When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Section 1915(a) does not require an applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution. See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemous & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). However, according to Ms. Jones's application, Ms. Jones and her husband make a combined income of $25,700 per month, and list monthly expenses of $4,260. Ms. Jones clearly does not satisfy the economic eligibility requirement.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES without prejudice Ms. Jones's motion for a TRO, and DENIES Ms. Jones's application to proceed in forma pauperis.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 1 and 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
