United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
DENNIS RAY DAVIS, JR.
WOODY WILSON, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Hornsby, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Ray Davis, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is incarcerated at
the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He
filed a civil rights complaint against the Caddo Parish
Commissioner, Woody Wilson, James R. Demouchet, Foster
Campbell, Steve Prator, Philip Raberstiow, Dianne Doughty,
Mike Spence, the Caddo Commissioner Office, the Sheriff
Office, the Caddo Parish District Attorney, James Stewart,
Mesika Creel, J. Ruffin, Cheyiel Stild, Sgt. England, Robert
Wyche, Michael Exsudade, Sgt. Montoya, Roxanna Stone, Deputy
Rollpolia, Chery Still, Michael Pye, Nikkiy Mandillion, John
Chirldren, Sheriff Office Internal Affairs, Seanea D. Hall,
and Mrs. Wanna. Plaintiff has filed numerous, confusing
pleadings raising numerous, unrelated claims.
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1951 form with attachments [Doc. 16]. The
court will consider the motion as one for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff
requests expedited consideration by the Louisiana First
Judicial District Court of his appeal regarding the
demolition and clean-up of his property.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in
pertinent part, as follows:
(b) A temporary restraining order may be granted without
written or oral notice to the adverse party or that
party's attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from
specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified
compliant that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the applicant before the adverse
party's attorney can be heard in opposition...
order for Plaintiff to obtain a preliminary injunction, he
would have to show (1) a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury
absent an injunction, (3) that the threatened injury would
exceed any harm that would flow from the injunction and (4)
that the injunction would not undermine the public interest.
Walgreen Co. v. Hood, 275 F.3d 475, 477 (5th Cir.
2001). Plaintiff must prove all four elements and any failure
to prove any one element will result in the denial of the
motion. Enterprise Intern., Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal
Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir.1985).
allegations in this complaint do not present a substantial
threat of irreparable injury absent a restraining order or
injunction. The allegations in this motion also do not
present a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the
Louisiana First Judicial Court to rule on his pending appeal
of the Caddo Parish Property Standards Board decision.
Mandamus relief is available "to compel an
officer or employee of the United States or any agency
thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28
U.S.C. § 1361. However, it is well settled that federal
courts have no general power to compel action by state
officials. See Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d
Cir. 1988); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431,
1436 n.5 (10th Cir. 1986); Russell v. Knight, 488
F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1973); Haggard v. State of
Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970). Because
the Louisiana First Judicial District Court is not a federal
officer, employee or agency, this court lacks jurisdiction to
issue a writ of mandamus to compel them to perform
an alleged duty. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Thus,
the issuance of such extraordinary relief is not appropriate
at this time.
IS RECOMMENDED that motion for temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) be
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.
Proc. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have
fourteen (14) days from service of this report and
recommendation to file specific, written objections with the
Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's
objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with
a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy
copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at
the time of filing.
party's failure to file written objections to the
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation set forth
above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a
copy, shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
district court. See Douglass v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d
1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).