Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Woods v. Fowner

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

April 20, 2017

CARLOS WOODS
v.
JACKIE FOWNER, et al.

         SECTION P

          TRIMBLE JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Carlos Woods filed a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which is consolidated with another action he has pending in this Court (Woods v. Carvajal, No. 1:17-cv-00289). A Report and Recommendation was issued, recommending dismissal of Woods' claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (Doc. 54).

         Since then, Woods has filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 56); a Motion to Remove Consolidation Order (Doc 57); a Motion for Restraining Order (Doc. 58); a Motion to Correct Error in Report and Recommendation (dated March 22, 2017) (Doc. 59); a Motion to Release Documentation (Doc. 60); a Summary of Undisputed Facts/Complaint (Motion for Summary Judgment) (Doc. 64); a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 65); a “Rule 34 Motion” (Doc. 66); a “Rule 45 Motion” (Doc. 67); a “Rule 65 Motion for Restraining Order” (Doc. 68); and another Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 70). Woods also sent a letter to the Clerk's office, asking that the cases be “unconsolidated” (Doc. 69).

         1.

         Woods's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 56) is DENIED for the reasons previously given (Docs. 16, 30, 31).

         2.

         Woods's Motions to Remove Consolidation Order (Docs. 57, 69) are DENIED. The cases are properly consolidated.

         3.

         Woods's “Motion for Restraining Order” against every Defendant (Doc. 58) and his “Rule 65 Motion for Restraining Order” against several prison employees (Doc. 68) are DENIED. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b)(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may 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 the notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

         In order for Woods to obtain a preliminary injunction, he must show: (1) a substantial likelihood that his cause will succeed on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the opposing party, and (4) that the court granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1981).

         Woods's allegations that Defendants are “taking” his legal papers and family photos, and his bald request that several named prison employees stay “within 100 feet” of Woods “for safety, ” do not show that he has been threatened with irreparable injury. Moreover, Woods cannot show there is a substantial likelihood that his cause will ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.