Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Lady Dan'Di'Le'on v. All Public and Private Entities

District Court, W.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-02548

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

7

LADY DAN'DI'LE'ON, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02548-JNW

8

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

9 MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY

v. RESTRAINING ORDER

10

All Public and Private Entities,

11

Defendants.

12

13

Plaintiff Lady Dan’Di’Le’on, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and moved
14

for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. The Court must construe pro se
15

filings liberally, but even under that standard, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
16

Plaintiff identifies herself as “Sovereign Flame of Caeluma Terrae Dandilia,
17

Living Woman, Executor and Beneficiary of the Seven Stars Private Trust,

18

grounded in Divine, Natural, and Codex Law.” Dkt. No. 2. She names as defendants
19

“All Public and Private Entities” and seeks relief against “all subsidiaries,
20

contractors, agents, officers, successors, and unknown actors operating under color
21

of law,” and “any party asserting control, jurisdiction, or interference without lawful
22

authority.” Id. As legal authority, Plaintiff cites “natural law, divine law, codex of
23

1 termination and sacred return, plaintiff’s sui juris standing, federal protections
2 under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 2000d, the Court’s inherent power to issue

3 injunctive relief.” Id. at 3.

4 The motion fails for multiple reasons. First, Plaintiff hasn’t identified any
5 specific defendants. Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue orders against “all
6 public and private entities” or other unnamed, unidentified parties. A plaintiff must
7 name specific defendants who can be served with process and bound by the Court’s
8 orders. Without identifiable defendants, there is no case or controversy within the

9 meaning of Article III.

10 Next, the TRO motion’s reliance on “Natural Law, Divine Law, Codex of
11 Termination & Sacred Return” reflects arguments associated with the sovereign
12 citizens movement. Similar claims based on a purported right to self-govern and
13 sovereign-citizen ideologies are routinely dismissed as frivolous by federal courts.
14 See United States v. Ward, 182 F.3d 930, at *2 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting contentions
15 based on sovereign-citizen arguments are “frivolous” and subject to summary

16 dismissal) (collecting cases). These theories do not provide a basis for relief in
17 federal court.

18 Third, even setting aside the sovereign-citizen arguments, the motion fails to
19 satisfy the requirements for a TRO. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) governs
20 the issuance of TROs. To obtain one, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of
21 success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in

22 the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the
23 moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res.
1 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Generally, a TRO is “an extraordinary
9 remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled

3 to such relief.” Id. at 22. The moving party has the burden of persuasion. Hill v.

4 McDonough, 547 U.S. 578, 584 (2006).
5 Plaintiff has not a made a clear showing on any of these factors. The motion

G takes the Court down a confusing path of allegations and alleged conspiracies. It is

7 || wholly unclear what the actual source of controversy is in this case. This confusion

8 is not helped by the fact that Plaintiffs allegations are against “all public and

9 private entities.” There is no cause of action or explanation of which parties
19 ||committed which allegedly harmful acts.

11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 2,
12 DENIED.

13 Dated this 16th day of January, 2026.

14 Z g Le~—
15 Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23