Opinion
2:23-cv-00165-CDS-NJK
02-06-2023
Alisha Walker, Plaintiff v. Fellonise Lewis, Defendant
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF NO. 2]
Cristina D. Silva, United States District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Alisha Walker moves for a temporary restraining order to halt unspecified matters regarding her child in a Chicago family court proceeding. Mot., ECF No. 2 at 1. While a document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed,” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), Walker provides neither substantive law nor specific factual assertions that allow me to adjudicate her claim on its merits. Even “pro se pleadings must still allege facts sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether a claim has been stated.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, the local rules of this district require motions to be “supported by a memorandum of points and authorities.” LR 7-2(a). “The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d). Finding no points of law or authorities cited in support of Walker's motion for a temporary restraining order, I deny the motion without prejudice.
I further order plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be unsealed, albeit with the personally identifying information of Walker's minor child redacted. Both the instant motion and Walker's documents initiating this case, ECF No. 1, were filed under seal, but no motion seeking permission to seal the documents accompanied these documents. Local Rule 10-5(a) requires that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by statute, rule, or prior court order, papers filed with the court under seal must be accompanied by a motion for leave to file those documents under seal. LR IA 10-5. Walker did not comply with this rule, and without more information, the court cannot assess if the filing should remain sealed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has 14 days to respond to this order to show cause demonstrating why this matter should remained sealed. Failure to respond will result in the action being unsealed without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.