Davis v. Bivens et al

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
JOHN L. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BIVENS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-10630-TSH
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING RE: MOTION FOR
INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 4
Plaintiff filed this case on December 11, 2025, alleging a contractor named “Larry”
violated “all of my consultational [sic] rights” by “using the social networking website” to “send[]
out false notification [sic] to people on public transportation system, an [sic] neighborhoods,
stating that I am a sex offender looking for there [sic] children to have sex with them. This is a ly
[sic].” Compl. at 1-2, ECF No. 1. The Court has granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and screened his complaint, directing him to file an amended complaint by January
15, 2026. ECF No. 5.
Plaintiff has now filed a motion entitled “Federal Injunction Actions,” asserting “Larry”
would like to “hit me in the head with me in my head with [sic] hammer or Kill me” and arrange
an assassination before plaintiff can “assert my U.S. Consultational [sic], an [sic] California
Consultational [sic]. I PRAY FOR RELIEF.” ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s filing “PRAY[s] for this
Federal Injunction” and references “An Estoppel,” but provides no other details. It is unclear what
relief Plaintiff is seeking, but he is likely requesting the Court issue a preliminary injunction
against contractor Larry.
“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v.
Case 3:25-cv-10630-RS Document 8 Filed 12/22/25 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
Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “A
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Here, not only is it unclear what relief Plaintiff seeks, he also does not address the factors
set forth by the Supreme Court in Winter. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a
supplemental brief in support of his motion by January 15, 2026. Plaintiff must (1) specify what
relief he is seeking and (2) establish that his request meets all the factors set forth in Winter.
As in its screening order, the Court encourages Plaintiff to seek assistance from the Federal
Pro Bono Project, a free service offered by the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association
of San Francisco. You may request an appointment by emailing fedpro@sfbar.org or calling 415-
782-8982. At the Federal Pro Bono Project, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may
be able to provide basic legal help but not representation. More information is available at
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.
Plaintiff may also wish to obtain a copy of this District’s Handbook for Litigants Without a
Lawyer, which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case. The
handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office and online at:
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-10630-RS Document 8 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 2