Ronald Gene Robinson v. General Manager of CALPIA

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the Court erred in denying his original motion for a temporary 3 || restraining order and preliminary injunction because the relief sought in the motion and 4 || the relief sought in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) are related. (Dkt. No. 64 at 2- ||3.) He contends the injuries alleged in the original motion “are a continuation of the 6 || due process and speech suppression” issues raised in the FAC. (Id.) Plaintiff also 7 || argues, without supporting details, that he is entitled to a temporary restraining order 8 || and preliminary injunction because he is likely to succeed on the merits, suffer 9 || irreparable harm with an injunction, and suffer hardship without an injunction. (Id. at 10 || 4-5.) The Court finds these arguments unavailing. First, Plaintiff does not raise a 12 || material difference in fact or law that could not have been known to Plaintiff when he 13 || filed the original motion. Second, Plaintiff offers no new material facts or law that ||emerged after the Court’s prior order. Third, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court did 15 || not previously consider material facts related to the…