United States District Court, D. Oregon
DOROTA R. ZUKOWSKA, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and FEDERAL BUEARU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants.
R. Zukowska Pro Se Plaintiff
J. Williams United States Attorney Susanne Luse Assistant
United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Dorota R. Zukowska brings this civil rights action
against Defendants United States Department of Homeland
Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation alleging
violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff moves
for an injunction requiring Defendants to remove alleged
surveillance from her residence, vehicle and other personal
property. Pl. Mot. Perm. Rest. Order (“Pl. Mot.”)
1, ECF 65. Because Plaintiff fails to show a likelihood of
success on the merits of her claims, the Court denies
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
arrived in the United States from Poland in 1985. Second Am.
Compl. (“SAC”) 4:109. Plaintiff sought political
asylum in 1987 and became a U.S. Citizen in 1996. SAC 4:109-
110. Plaintiff currently resides with her daughters in
Portland, Oregon. SAC 5:119-120.
problems began when she visited Poland in 2015. SAC 6:141.
There, she began experiencing harassment, which continued
upon her return to the United States. SAC 6:141-42. Plaintiff
alleges that, among other things, her house was broken into
during her absence, documents have been stolen or misplaced,
her internet and telephone have been tampered with, there
have been delays at store registers, her mail has been
interfered with, and she has been prevented from obtaining
legal representation. SAC 6:141-46, 9:260-61. Relevant to
this motion, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intercepted
her personal conversations and internet activity without a
warrant, in part to “support faulty claims that
Plaintiff is a terrorist supporter.” SAC 7:177-78, 187,
192. She also alleges that Defendants have placed
surveillance both inside and outside of her home and car
without a warrant. SAC 8:206. She alleges that these things
have occurred on a daily basis for the last three years. SAC
alleges that these actions constitute violations of her
constitutional rights. SAC 3-4. By breaking into her home,
stealing documents, installing surveillance, damaging her
property, and interfering with her telephone and internet,
Defendants have allegedly violated Plaintiff's Fourth and
Fifth Amendment Rights. Defendants allegedly violated
Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by
preventing her from obtaining an attorney. Defendants also
allegedly discriminated against Plaintiff based on her age,
gender, minority status, and marital status in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and
violated her First Amendment Freedom of Speech.
result of this harassment, Plaintiff contends that she has
suffered financial hardship, emotional distress, and
emotional and physical abuse. SAC 14-16. She also contends
that she has been unable to visit family members.
Id. She seeks injunctive relief, reimbursement for
damages to her home, and contracts with the Governments of
the United States and Poland for the recommendation and sale
of her books and art in order to recover additional damages.
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. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 20 (2008). The plaintiff “must establish that
irreparable harm is likely, not just
possible[.]” Alliance For The Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). The court
may apply a sliding scale test, under which “the
elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so
that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker
showing of another.” Id. Thus, a party seeking
an injunction may show greater irreparable harm as the
probability of success on the merits decreases. Id.
(noting also that the relevant test in the Ninth Circuit is
described as the “serious questions” test where
the likelihood of success is such that “serious
questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of
hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor”)
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
party requesting a preliminary injunction must carry its
burden of persuasion by a “‘clear
showing'” of the four required elements set forth
above. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972
(1997) (per curiam); Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068,
1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (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'”) (quoting
Mazurek, 520 U.S. at 972).
moves for a permanent restraining order requiring Defendants
to remove the surveillance from her residence, vehicle, and
property. Pl. Mot. 1. Plaintiff contends that the alleged
harassment-including the alleged unlawful surveillance-occurs
on a daily basis and has been reported to the relevant city
and state officials and private entities. Id. In
support of her motion, Plaintiff provides detailed factual
allegations that allegedly constitute violations of her
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures. Id. at 2-6. Defendants respond in