Bentley v. Srivastava et al

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF UTAH
EMILIE DEAN BENTLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHEILA SRIVASTAVA, CHRIS
HARDING, RYAN SULLIVAN and
SAMMY BATARSEH,
Defendants.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:25-cv-00927
District Court Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
The case is before the undersigned pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) referral from
District Court Chief Judge Jill N Parrish.1 On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff Emilie Dean Bentley
filed her Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Equity (Non-Statutory; Submitted
Under the Court’s Article III Equitable Power).2 Through her Motion Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief, “restraining” Defendants from issuing any tax related notices, bills, penalties or liens
“under any fictitious, incorrect, or mis-styled name”.3
I. 	Ms. Bentley Fails To Establish The Elements For A Preliminary Injunction
Preliminary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”4
“Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the right to relief must be clear
and unequivocal.”5
1 ECF No. 41, Notice of Non-Consent.
2 ECF No. 29, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Equity.
3 Id. at 4.
4 Winter v. Natural Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).
5 Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F. 3d 1250, 1256 (10 th Cir. 2003).
Case 2:25-cv-00927-JNP Document 44 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

A party seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of showing: ‘(1) a
substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless
the injunction is issued; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm that
the preliminary injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the
injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest.”6
“The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.”7 Indeed, the Tenth
Circuit has noted that “because a showing of probable irreparable harm is the single most
important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the moving party must first
demonstrate that such injury is likely before the other requirements for the issuance of an
injunction will be considered.”8
As discussed in detail in the court’s January 20, 2026 Ruling and Order, Ms. Bentley fails
to establish subject matter jurisdiction or state a plausible claim for relief.9 As a result, she is
unable to show a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of her claims. In turn, as also
discussed in the January 20 Ruling, Plaintiff has not shown any irreparable harm or injury that
has occurred, or that will occur if her “true and lawful identity” is not used or adopted by
governmental agencies.10 Because Ms. Bentley cannot establish the first and second elements of
the preliminary injunction standard, the court RECOMMENDS dismissal of Plaintiff’s motion
for preliminary injunction.11
6 Id. at 1255 (brackets omitted) (quoting Federal Lands Legal Consortium ex rel. Robart Estate v. United
States, 195 F.3d 1190, 1194 (10th Cir. 1999)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
7 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009).
8 Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1260 (10th Cir. 2004).
(citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted).
9 ECF No. 43, Ruling and Order.
10 Id.
11 ECF No. 29.
Case 2:25-cv-00927-JNP Document 44 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

II. Notification of Right To Object
The Clerk’s Office is directed to send copies of this Report and Recommendation to all
parties who are hereby notified of their right to object. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). The parties must file any objection to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen
(14) days of service. Failure to object may constitution waiver of the objections upon subsequent
review.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: 	this 20th day of January 2026.
_______________________
Dustin B. Pead
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00927-JNP Document 44 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3