govinfo:USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00846-1

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 
 
 
 
 
 
 Before the Court is Plaintiff Wanda Elaine Smith -Jeter’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for 
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 57). Plaintiff alleges that, 
on May 27, 2022, she and her husband were “forcibly removed” from their apartment an d 
that they were n ot given an “Eviction Notice.” (Doc. 57 at 1). She now requests that this 
Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. 
 A party seeking injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure must show that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer 
irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its 
favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.1 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 
 
1 The Ninth Circuit observes a “sliding scale” approach, in that these elements “ are 
balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of 
another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell , 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 
Thus, by example, an injunction can issue where there are “‘serious questions going to the 
merits’ and a balance of hardships that tip s sharply towards the plaintiff… so long as the 
plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is 
in the public interest.” Id. at 1135. 
 
Wanda Elaine Smith-Jeter, 
 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
 
City of Scottsdale, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
No. CV-21-00846-PHX-SPL 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 

 
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 
 
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard , 775 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 
2014); Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2012); Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales 
Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co ., Inc., 240 F.3d 8 32, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the 
movant seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than prohibitory, injunctive relief is “subject 
to a heightened scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the 
moving party.” Dahl v. HEM Pharms. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).2 
 Here, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to sufficiently address three of the four Winter factors. 
Plaintiff asserts that she is likely to succeed on the merits because she “believe[s] that the 
eviction was forced an[d ] illegal because [she] was never served with an eviction notice 
[and] was therefore denied the opportunity to request a ‘reasonable accommodation due to 
disability.’” (Doc. 57 at 2). This is an insufficient discussion of the first factor because it 
fails to address the merits of the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint . Plaintiff’s Complaint 
contains claims related to discrimination and other alleged violations of Plaintiff’s civil 
rights. (Doc. 55-1 at 3–6). The Complaint does not allege that her eviction was improper 
or otherwise invalid. Therefore, in discussing the first Winter factor, Plaintiff mu st 
sufficiently show that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her discrimination and civil 
rights claims, rather than discuss the merits of the eviction. Plaintiff also fails to 
meaningfully address the third and fourth factors of the Winter test. The Motion makes no 
mention at all of the “balance of equities” and otherwise fails to explain why the balance 
of equities tips in Plaintiff’s favor. As to the fourth factor, Plaintiff makes only the 
conclusory assertion that “the TRO is in the public interest.” (Doc. 57 at 2). Plaintiff does 
not provide any support for this assertion or otherwise explain why the public interest 
favors an injunction. In sum, Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied because Plaintiff has not 
sufficiently carried her burden of showing that the Winter factors weigh in her favor. See 
 
2 “A mandatory injunction orders a responsible party to take action,” while “a 
prohibitory injunction prohibits a party from taking action and preserves the status quo 
pending a determination of the action on the merits.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 
Pharma GmbH & Co. , 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 
omitted). “The ‘status quo’ refers to the legally relevant relationship between the parties 
before the controversy arose.” Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer , 757 F.3d 1053, 
1060–61 (9th Cir. 2014). 

 
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 
 
Env’t Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (“The 
moving party carries the burden of proof on each element of [the] test.”). 
 Even if Plaintiff had sufficiently addressed the four Winter factors, this Court would 
still be unable to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction because Plaintiff has not clearly 
stated the relief she seeks. Although it is evident that Pla intiff seeks injunctive relief, it is 
unclear what specific injunction she has in mind. The Court is unable to determine whether 
Plaintiff seeks an injunction overturning the eviction entirely, an injunction ordering 
Defendants to allow Plaintiff back into her h ome to retrieve her personal belongings and 
“medically necessary items,” or some other form of injunctive relief. 
In sum, this Court must deny Plaintiff’s Motion because Plaintiff fails to sufficiently 
address three of the four Winter factors, and because Plaintiff has not clearly specified what 
form of injunctive relief she seeks. Nonetheless, given the nature of the harm alleged, the 
Court will exercise its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice . Plaintiff 
shall have the opportunity to refile her Motion in a manner that sufficiently complies with 
this Order and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Accordingly, 
 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order an d 
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 57) is denied without prejudice. 
 Dated this 31st day of May, 2022. 
 
 
 
Honorable Steven P. Logan 
United States District Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight