Logan v. City of Mesa Police Department et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Robert Logan,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Mesa Police Department, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-04291-PHX-KML
ORDER
On May 22, 2026, plaintiff Robert Logan filed his complaint in state court. (Doc. 1-
3 at 2.) Logan alleges he is the owner of a motorhome that as of November 17, 2025, was
parked on the street in Mesa, Arizona. Logan later moved the motorhome to a different
location but, on November 24, 2025, the Mesa Police Department directed defendant All
City Towing to “seize[] and tow[] the Motorhome.” (Doc. 1-3 at 3.) The complaint alleges
state and federal claims against the City of Mesa Police Department and All City Towing.
The same day Logan filed his complaint, he filed a motion for temporary restraining
order. (Doc. 2.) That motion seeks the “[i]mmediate return” of Logan’s motorhome and his
personal property that was in the motorhome. The motion also seeks various forms of
“compensatory damages” totaling “$580,000+.” (Doc. 2 at 2.) On June 18, 2026, the case
was removed to this court. (Doc. 1.) Shortly after removal, All City Towing filed a motion
to dismiss claiming it was not properly served. (Doc. 7.) The City of Mesa Police
Department has not yet responded to the complaint.
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 1 of 9

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order may be issued if the plaintiff shows a likelihood of
success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities tips in the
plaintiff’s favor, and an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Alternatively, a temporary restraining order may be
issued if there are “serious questions going to the merits,” “the balance of hardships tips
sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” there is “a likelihood of irreparable injury,” and an
“injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011). Logan has not established entitlement to relief under either
standard because he has not shown a likelihood of irreparable injury.
A temporary restraining order “is sought upon the theory that there is an urgent need
for speedy action to protect the plaintiff’s rights. By sleeping on [his] rights a plaintiff
demonstrates the lack of need for speedy action.” Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas,
745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 1984) (simplified). Delay usually is “a single factor to
consider in evaluating irreparable injury.” Arc of California v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975, 990
(9th Cir. 2014). But here, Logan waited seven months to seek relief and offers no
explanation for that delay. This does not appear to be a situation where “the magnitude of
the potential harm” only became “apparent gradually.” Id. Nor did Logan need months to
gather evidence to present “a credible case” of significant harm. Id. Rather, Logan’s
motorhome was seized in November 2025 but he apparently did not believe it was
sufficiently urgent to seek relief for seven months. This unexplained delay undercuts any
claim of irreparable injury.
Beyond the unexplained delay, the type of relief sought in Logan’s motion indicates
he is not suffering irreparable injury. “Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for
which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages.” Arizona Dream
Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). Logan’s motion seeks relief in
the form of return of his property or an immediate award of damages. In effect, Logan
appears to concede his particular injuries could be remedied by an award of damages. A
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 2 of 9

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
temporary restraining order is not the appropriate mechanism to obtain such a damages
award. Because Logan has not established he is likely to suffer irreparable injury absent
early injunctive relief, his motion is denied.
II. Pro Se Litigant
Logan is proceeding pro se and the court must “construe pro se filings liberally.”
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). But Logan “must follow the same rules
of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987),
overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). To
the extent he has not already, Logan must complete proper service of process on each
defendant. Logan also must respond to any motion by the deadline established by local
rule. Failure to respond to a motion may result in the court summarily granting that motion.
Local Rule 7.2(i).
III. Preliminary Order
The parties are advised of the following preliminary policies and procedures that
will govern these proceedings.
Governing Rules
Both counsel and pro se litigants must abide by the Rules of Practice of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”) and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Disclosure Statements
Full compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 is required by plaintiff(s)
and defendant(s). Rule 7.1(a)(1) requires any nongovernmental corporation to file a
disclosure statement identifying “any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation
owning 10% or more of its stock.” Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires a party in an action where
jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) to file a disclosure statement
identifying the citizenship of “every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to
that party.” A Corporate Disclosure Statement form is available at
https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/forms/disclosure-statement.
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 3 of 9

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Service Deadline
Service of the summons and complaint on each defendant located in the United
States must occur within 90 days of filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If service
cannot occur within 90 days, a request for an extension may be filed before expiration of
the 90-day period. Any such request must set forth the reason why service has not been
accomplished and request a specific short additional period of time. If the court believes
your reason constitutes “good cause,” it will authorize a brief additional period to
accomplish service.
Proof of service must be filed with the Clerk of Court, in the form of an affidavit,
promptly after service has been made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). It is important to comply
with this requirement because absent proof of service, the court will have no way of
knowing that the complaint has been served.
This order serves as an express warning that the court will dismiss this action,
without further notice to plaintiff(s), with respect to any defendant that is not timely served.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Forms of Papers
The parties shall adhere to all of the requirements of Local Rule 7.1, including the
requirement that text and footnotes shall be no smaller than 13 point. Citations supporting
any textual proposition shall be included in the text, not in a footnote.
Notices of supplemental authority and responses to those notices are limited to 350
words excluding case captions and signature blocks.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Any party that uses generative artificial intelligence (“generative AI”) in connection
with filings in this matter must attach to the subject filing a separate declaration disclosing
the use of generative AI and certifying that the filer, in the exercise of the filer’s
independent judgment, has personally reviewed and verified the content of the filing as
accurate and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The declaration must
identify which, if any, portion of the filing incorporates Generative AI outputs. Any party
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 4 of 9

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
who presents to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper incorporating
inaccurate or undeclared generative AI outputs, including but not limited to inaccurate or
non-existent case citations, may be subject to sanctions without further warning.
“Generative AI” as used in the previous paragraph refers to large-language models
that accept user input and generate new content. Generative AI includes, but is not limited
to, the tools available through ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, Google Gemini, and
Grok.
Paper Courtesy Copies
Do not send paper courtesy copies of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)
pleadings, short procedural motions (e.g., motions for extension of time), 26(f) reports, or
stipulations. A paper courtesy copy of dispositive motions (or other lengthy motions that
will be opposed) and any responses or replies thereto shall be either postmarked and mailed
to the judge or hand-delivered to the judge’s mailbox in the courthouse by the next business
day after the electronic filing. Do not attempt to deliver documents to the judge’s chambers.
Courtesy copies should be double-sided and include the ECF-generated header at the top
of each page. Courtesy copies of documents too large for stapling must be submitted in
three-ring binders.
Amending Pleadings
Before filing a motion for leave to amend a pleading, the party that wishes to amend
must seek the consent of the other parties in an attempt to file the amended pleading
pursuant to Local Rule 15.1(b). If any party is unwilling to consent, the motion for leave
to amend must indicate which party (or parties) will oppose the request. If a motion for
leave to amend a pleading fails to so indicate, the motion will be denied without prejudice
for failure to adhere to this order.
Motions and Stipulations
Every motion or stipulation, however mundane, must cite the rule(s) and/or law(s)
that permit the court to grant the requested relief. Requests for extensions of time must
include a brief explanation of why the extension is needed to help the court determine
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 5 of 9

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whether there is good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).
To ensure timely case processing, a party moving for an extension of time,
enlargement of page limitations, or leave to file a document under seal shall indicate in the
motion whether the non-movant opposes the request and intends to file a written response.
If such a motion does not so indicate, it may be denied for failure to comply with this order.
Motions and stipulations should be accompanied by proposed orders. A proposed
order is not necessary for motions that will require a reasoned analysis from the court, or
for stipulations requesting issuance of the court’s standard protective order with no
amendments. These proposed orders must not be on letterhead or contain any information
identifying the party submitting the order, and they must set forth the relief requested rather
than incorporating the motion or stipulation by reference. See also Local Rule 7.1(b)(3).
Proposed orders must be emailed—in Microsoft Word format (not PDF)—to
Lanham_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov. The subject line of the email must include the case
name, case number, the words “proposed order for [name of motion],” and an indication
of whether the motion is opposed or unopposed if this is not otherwise apparent from the
name of the motion.
Rule 12 Motions Are Discouraged
Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 is discouraged if the
challenged defect in the pleading can be cured by filing an amended pleading. The court
therefore requires that: (1) before filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or a Rule 12(c)
motion for judgment on the pleadings, the movant confer with the opposing party to
determine whether such motion can be avoided; and (2) the movant attach a certificate of
conferral, certifying that it notified the opposing party of the issues asserted in its motion
and that the parties conferred but were unable to agree that the pleading was curable in any
part by a permissible amendment offered by the pleading party. See also Local Rule
12.1(c). The requirement to meet and confer and attach a certificate of conferral applies in
equal force to motions to dismiss amended complaints, notwithstanding earlier conferrals
and certificates filed before the complaint was amended. Any motion lacking the required
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 6 of 9

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
certification may be summarily stricken.
Multiple defendants represented by the same counsel may not file separate Rule 12
motions. Defendants represented by the same counsel who wish to file a Rule 12 motion
must file a single joint motion that includes all arguments applicable to any defendant.
Protective Orders
The court’s standard protective order is available is available at
www.azd.uscourts.gov under: Judges’ Information → Orders, Forms and Procedures →
Lanham, Krissa M. If the parties agree that discoverable materials should be kept
confidential, they may file a stipulation requesting that the court issue its standard
protective order. If the parties wish to propose additional provisions, they may request and
stipulate to the additional proposed language, subject to the court’s review. In that case, all
language added to the standard order by the parties should be redlined into a Word
document using “tracked changes,” and the parties’ Word document with the tracked
changes must be emailed to chambers. The parties are reminded that the mere fact the
parties have designated certain materials or information as confidential pursuant to an
agreement or stipulation does not mean the court will automatically order that filings
containing such information be placed under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).
Motions to Seal
Local Rule 5.6 governs sealing of court records in unsealed civil actions. Every
motion to seal, including stipulations pursuant to Local Rule 5.6(d), must identify the legal
standard applicable to the document at issue and explain why the material sought to be
sealed meets that standard. The stringent “compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings” standard articulated in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1178 (9th Cir. 2006), applies to motions and their attachments where the motion is “more
than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101.
Merely noting that a document was designated confidential by a party will not satisfy any
applicable legal standard for sealing.
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 7 of 9

- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Where a party seeks to seal only certain portions of a given document, the
unredacted version of the document, which should be lodged under seal pursuant to Local
Rule 5.6(c), must include highlighting to indicate which portions of the document the party
seeks to redact.
Emergencies and Expedited Consideration
Any party desiring expedited consideration of a motion or other matter pending
before the court may make such a request by filing a separate Notice for Expedited
Consideration accompanied by a certificate from counsel for the moving party or, if
unrepresented, the moving party. The certificate must set forth the following: 1) the facts
establishing the need for expedited resolution; 2) the dates of the imminent events pertinent
to the request; 3) whether the motion or request for expedited consideration could have
been filed earlier; and 4) when or how the moving party will provide notice to all other
parties and the other parties’ positions on the motion. A request for expedited consideration
that is simply mentioned in the caption/title of the related filing will not be considered—a
separate notice and certificate must be filed.
Requests to Reschedule Court Dates
The court interprets Local Rule 7.3(b) as applying to requests to reschedule court
dates due to attorney conflicts. As such, and to enable the court to efficiently manage cases,
such requests must be made by motion or stipulation, must indicate the position of each
other party, and (unless another party plans to file a written opposition, which would be
appropriate only in rare circumstances) must propose to the court at least three dates/times
when all counsel are available for rescheduling purposes.
Noncompliance
The parties are specifically advised that failure to prosecute, to comply with court
orders, or to comply with the Local and Federal Rules may result in dismissal of all or part
of this case, default, imposition of sanctions, or summary disposition of matters pending
before the court. See also Local Rule 7.2(i) (“If a motion does not conform in all substantial
respects with the requirements of [the Local Rules], or if the [opposing party] does not
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 8 of 9

- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
serve and file the required answering memoranda, . . . such noncompliance may be deemed
a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the court may dispose of the motion
summarily.”).
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is
DENIED.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-04291-KML Document 8 Filed 06/25/26 Page 9 of 9