Ore v. Dorsey

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER P. ORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEKAY RAMON DORSEY,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-00580-AMO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 3
On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff Christopher P. Ore, representing himself, filed a motion for
a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), seeking to enjoin Defendant Tekay Ramon Dorsey, a
Supervisory Deputy United States Marshall, from “engaging in any further conduct that
intimidates, threatens, retaliates against, or otherwise violates Plaintiff’s constitutional rights[.]”
Dkt. No. 3 at 3. Having reviewed Ore’s motion and the arguments made therein, as well as the
relevant legal authority, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice for the following
reasons.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that a temporary restraining order may be
granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if: (1) it
clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or the
party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies in writing the
efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the claim
that notice should not be required.” Misch v. Alameda Cnty. Sheriff's Off., No. 22-CV-05278-
HSG, 2023 WL 5767464, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)). Ore’s
motion fails to meet these requirements. While Ore alleges that he gave notice of an
Case 3:26-cv-00580-AMO Document 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 2

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
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
administrative demand to Dorsey and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
California, Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 16-22, he does not allege he provided notice of the instant lawsuit or his
motion for a temporary restraining order, and he has not filed a proof of service. Neither does Ore
proffer any reasons to support that notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
Thus, the Court DENIES the motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice.
Ore may refile his motion for a temporary restraining order once he has either served Dorsey or
explained why notice should not be required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00580-AMO Document 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 2