United States District Court, E.D. Washington
DARRYL W. RISER, Plaintiff,
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, DON HOLBROOK, BRIAN ALLAN DIXON, and RANDI N. CROYLE, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
O. RICE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is Plaintiff Darryl W. Riser's Motions for
Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (ECF
Nos. 3; 19) filed April 6, 2018 and April 26, 2018,
respectively. The motions were submitted for consideration
without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and
files herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons
discussed below, the Motions are denied.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a district court may
(1) “issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to
the adverse party” or (2) “issue a temporary
restraining order without written or oral notice to the
adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in
an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result
to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in
writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why
it should not be required.” “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).
Plaintiff has not met the prerequisites for requesting a
temporary restraining order. Plaintiff has not provided a
certification describing any effort to give notice to the
Defendants, nor was there any explanation as to why notice
should not be required. Plaintiff's request for a
temporary restraining order thus must be
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success in his
request for a preliminary injunction. Although Plaintiff was
assigned whistleblower status,  Plaintiff has not submitted any
evidence supporting his assertion that he was wrongly
terminated for his whistleblower activities,  which appears to
be limited to criticisms of supervisors and other
employees. Rather, the evidence submitted so far
appears to support WSU's decision to terminate Plaintiff
for cause and that Plaintiff was accorded adequate notice and
an opportunity to respond despite Plaintiff's status as
an at-will employee,  bearing in mind that “discharge of a
public employee whose position is terminable at the will of
the employer” generally does not implicate the due
process clause because the employee has no property interest
in the position. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348
(1976); Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cty., 69
F.3d 321, 331 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's request for a
preliminary injunction thus must be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary
Injunction (ECF Nos. 3; 19) are DENIED.
District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and
furnish copies to the parties.
 Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington
§ 42.52.410, a state employee who files a complaint with
the appropriate ethics board shall be afforded the
protection afforded to a whistleblower under §§
42.40.050 and 49.60.210(2), subject to the limitations of
§§ 42.40.035 and 42.40.910.
 See ECF No. 19-9 (WSU Office
of Equal Opportunity finding Plaintiff's claims of
discrimination and retaliation were unfounded).
 Plaintiff repeatedly states that he
has filed a race discrimination charge, see,
e.g., ECF No. 19 at 3, 5, 12, but Plaintiff has not
explained what racial discrimination occurred, and the
charging document (dated November 30, 2017), ECF No. 19-2,
does not include any detail, either. Further, Plaintiff has
not submitted a “Notice of Right to Sue” from the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as is required
before filing suit for work-place race discrimination.
Waters v. Heublein, Inc., 547 F.2d 466, 468 (9th
See, e.g., ECF Nos.
18-5 (notice of potential disciplinary action: termination
for cause); 18-9 (termination letter); 18-30 (notice of
counseling re: work-place deficiencies); 18-34 (WSU review of
termination action); 18-37 (review of OEO final closing
document); 19-9 (Office of Equal Opportunity closing