Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KONRAD STIMSON, Case No. 2:26-cv-00393-DJC-CKD

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14 CALIFORNIA TEACHERS (ECF No. 8)

CREDENTIALING COMMISSION, ET

15 AL.,

16 Defendant.

17

18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Konrad Stimson’s emergency supplement to the

19 Complaint, which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 8.)

20 Plaintiff is appearing without counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court submits the

21 motion upon the record and briefs on file.

22 For the reasons that follow, the Court RECOMMENDS dismissing Plaintiff’s motion.

23 / / /

24 / / /

25 / / /

26 / / /

27

28

1 I. BACKGROUND

2 A. Factual Allegations1

3 Plaintiff held a California Intern Moderate Severe Education Specialist Instruction

4 Credential issued July 29, 2021, valid through August 1, 2023. Compl. ¶ 44. Plaintiff also held

5 three Arizona teaching certificates. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff was employed by Milpitas Unified School

6 District (“MUSD”). Id. at ¶ 2. On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff was issued a letter of reprimand by

7 MUSD that alleged, among other things, that Plaintiff grabbed a female student’s arm and that a

8 faculty member observed Plaintiff recording a female student on video. See Id. at ¶¶ 66-70. Also,

9 on or about May 20, 2022, MUSD issued Plaintiff a “Notice of Non-Reelection,” which

10 terminated his employment. Id. at 80. MUSD sent the report to the California Teachers’

11 Credentialing Commission (“CTC”). Id. at ¶ 82. The CTC revoked Plaintiff’s teaching credential

12 on July 5, 2024. Id. at 86.

13 The Arizona State Board of Education commenced a reciprocal action against Plaintiff,

14 and on December 8, 2025, the Board issued an order preventing Plaintiff from seeking

15 professional educator certifications in Arizona for seven (7) years. Id. at 102.

16 B. Procedural Posture

17 On February 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants CTC and Arizona

18 State Board of Education alleging Due Process violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth

19 Amendments, Title IX sex discrimination, and a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff’s civil rights

20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant CTC filed a motion to dismiss and to quash

21 service of summons on March 5, 2026. (ECF No. 7.) On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed an

22 emergency supplement, which the Court construes as a request for a temporary restraining order.

23 (ECF No. 8.) Defendant Arizona State Board of Education has not yet appeared in the case. See

24 Docket.

25 / / /

26

1 These facts primarily derive from the complaint (ECF No. 1), which are construed in the light

27 most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017,

1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of any conclusory factual

28 allegations or legal conclusions. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009).

1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS

2 The relief Plaintiff seeks is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3 The analysis for granting a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction is

4 “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7

5 (9th Cir. 2001). Both remedies are “extraordinary and drastic,” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068,

6 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted), and “may only be awarded upon a clear showing

7 that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief,” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22

8 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking [injunctive relief] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the

9 merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

10 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20.

11 Courts in the Ninth Circuit may alternately apply a “serious questions” test and issue injunctive

12 relief where a plaintiff raises “serious questions going to the merits” and “the balance of

13 hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor,” if the other Winter factors are also met. Alliance for

14 the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).

15 The Eastern District of California's local rules impose specific requirements on those who

16 request a temporary restraining order. See Local Rule 231. When deciding whether to issue a

17 temporary restraining order, the court may rely on declarations, affidavits, and exhibits, among

18 other things. See Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009). This evidence need

19 not conform to the standards that apply at summary judgment or trial. Id.; Flynt Distrib. Co. v.

20 Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984).

21 III. DISCUSSION

22 Plaintiff alleges he sought a petition for reinstatement before Defendant CTC and was

23 issued a denial on February 20, 2026. ECF No. 8 at 2. The date Defendant CTC’s decision will

24 become final, and the denial of Plaintiff’s credentials will become effective, is March 22, 2026.

25 Id. at 10. Concurrently, Plaintiff filed a writ of mandate in the Sacramento Superior Court on or

26 before February 19, 2026. Id. at 5. Plaintiff seeks an order issuing an emergency stay of

27 Defendant CTC’s March 22, 2026, credential revocation effective date while Plaintiff’s writ of

28 mandate is pending in the Sacramento Superior Court. Id. at 7.

1 As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of this court’s local

2 rule governing applications for TROs and preliminary injunctions. See Local Rule 231. “Except

3 in the most extraordinary of circumstances, no [TRO] shall be granted in the absence of actual

4 notice to the affected party and/or counsel….” Local Rule 231(a). Plaintiff has not filed an

5 affidavit detailing notice or efforts to effect notice. In addition, Plaintiff has not filed a brief on all

6 relevant legal issues or an affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury. See Local

7 Rule 231(c) & (d)(2). The motion is procedurally defective. See Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t

8 of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to

9 comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”); Nible v. Macomber, No.

10 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK-PC, 2024 WL 2133319, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2024) (finding pro se

11 plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 231 sufficient to deny the motion).

12 Plaintiff also does not establish the likelihood that he will suffer irreparable harm in the

13 absence of preliminary relief. The emergency relief Plaintiff requests is an emergency stay of

14 Defendant CTC’s March 22, 2026 credential revocation effective date while Plaintiff’s writ of

15 mandate is pending in the Sacramento Superior Court. Emergency Mot. at 7. However, Plaintiff’s

16 exhibit shows the March 22, 2026 event is actually the date on which the decision on the denial of

17 his Petition for Reinstatement becomes final. Emergency Mot. at 10. Plaintiff describes this as a

18 “career-ending sanction [from] being permitted to stand.” Emergency Mot. at 6. Plaintiff further

19 describes the “stakes” of his motion for injunctive relief as “permanent revocation of teaching

20 credentials in two states, foreclosure of a professional career, [and] ongoing reputational harm.”

21 Id. These descriptions of alleged irreparable harm are vague and speculative. “A loss of earnings

22 and damage to reputation is generally insufficient to support a finding of irreparable harm and

23 provide a basis for temporary injunctive relief.” Rodriguez Yaben v. Oregon Jud. Dep’t, 2025 WL

24 2426703, at *1 (D. Or. Aug. 21, 2025). And here, Plaintiff does not identify any specific

25 consequences, employment-related or otherwise, that will result from the denial of his Petition for

26 Reinstatement becoming final on March 22, 2026. Plaintiff has not demonstrated immediate

27 threatened injury or a likelihood of irreparable harm as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive

28 relief. See Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201

1 |} (9th Cir. 1980); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 1997) (the threat of injury “must

2 | be imminent, not remote or speculative”), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998).

3 In addition, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims

4 || as required for a TRO to issue. Plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of establishing the

5 | merits of his claims. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Plaintiff does not furnish the court with evidence

6 || in support of the merits of his claims. The merit of Plaintiff's claims will depend on resolution of

7 || disputed factual issues which are not before the court.

8 In sum, without showing a likelihood of success on the merits, or a likelihood of

9 || irreparable harm, Plaintiff cannot establish that a temporary restraining order or preliminary

10 || injunction is appropriate. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)

11 | (citing Winter, 555 US. at 20).

12 | IV. CONCLUSION

13 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED:

14 1. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 8) be DENIED.

15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after

17 || being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with

18 || the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should be captioned “Objections to

19 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

20 | onall parties and filed with the Court within 14 days after service of the objections. Failure to file

21 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

22 || Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57

23 | (9th Cir. 1991).

24 | Dated: March 13, 2026 / □□ I / dle ae

2% UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 || 7, stim.0393

28