United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
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).
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).
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 56) is DENIED for the reasons
previously given (Docs. 16, 30, 31).
Motions to Remove Consolidation Order (Docs. 57, 69) are
DENIED. The cases are properly consolidated.
“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.
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).
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 ...