United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
the Court is Travis Sentell Davis' ("Plaintiff')
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.
3). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff
asserts generalized complaints regarding prison conditions
including alleged retaliation, which have "force[d]
[him] to seek refuge under mental health." (Doc. 3 at p.
2). Plaintiff claims that the retaliation he is experiencing
is a direct result of having filed a complaint against
various prison officials. (Id. at p. 2). Plaintiff
alleges no other facts or legal theories in support of his
complaint, Plaintiff claims that he was punched in the face
multiple times after a routine medical exam, and was
forcefully penetrated by officers under the guise of
retrieving a stool sample. (Doc. 1-1 at p. 3). Plaintiff also
alleges that he was "tortured" by being kept in
isolation, and not given enough food. (Id. at p. 5).
Throughout Plaintiffs complaint, he references multiple
instances where he attempted suicide, was rushed to the
hospital for treatment, and then not given acceptable
after-care treatment. (Id., generally).
LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION
Rule of Civil Procedure ('Rule') 65 provides:
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 notice and the
reasons why it should not be required.
did not submit an affidavit, and his complaint is not
verified. Further, Plaintiff is proceeding joro se, and has
not certified in writing any efforts made to give notice to
Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff has not met the minimum
requirements under Rule 65 for a temporary restraining order.
Additionally, Plaintiffs motion wholly fails to address the
requirements for a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy; it is never awarded as of right." Munafv.
Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (internal citations
and quotations omitted). See also Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc.
v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989)
(preliminary injunctive relief "is an extraordinary
remedy and should be granted only if the movant has clearly
carried the burden of persuasion with respect to all four
factors"); Mississippi Power & Light Co. v.
United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir.
1985) f[t]he decision to grant a request for preliminary
injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than the
rule"). The decision whether to grant or deny a request
for a preliminary injunction is within the sound discretion
of the Court. See Allied Mlttg. Grp., Inc., 878 F.2d
times, the burden of persuasion remains with Plaintiff as to
each of the four elements. Specifically, a Plaintiff must
establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the
merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the
injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury
outweighs any harm that will result to the non-movant if the
injunction is granted; and (4) the injunction will not
disserve the public interest. See Ridgely v. Fed.
Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 512 F.3d 727, 734 (5th Cir.
2008). If a plaintiff fails to meet his burden regarding any
of the necessary elements, the Court need not address the
other elements necessary for granting a preliminary
injunction. See Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356,
261 (5th Cir. 1990) (declining to address the remaining
elements necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction after
finding that the plaintiff failed to show a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits), In the instant motion,
Plaintiff asserts that he is being retaliated against for a
previously pending lawsuit, which was allegedly
"dismissed because someone was destroying [Plaintiffs]
outgoing mail." Plaintiff further alleges "[h]e is
being force [sic] to seek refuge under mental health because
of the conditions of my confinement." (Doc. 3 at p. 2).
The record is devoid of any evidence to support Plaintiffs
assertions. Thus, for the purposes of obtaining a preliminary
injunction, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. In
particular, Plaintiff has not shown, and does not even so
much as allege, that he will face a substantial threat of
irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, nor does
Plaintiff address any other requirement necessary in order to
obtain injunctive relief.
the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is a pro se
litigant, his motion remains insufficient to warrant granting
the immediate relief he seeks at this stage. Importantly,
"only those injuries that cannot be redressed by the
application of a judicial remedy after a hearing on the
merits can properly justify a preliminary injunction."
Canal Auth. of State of Fla, v. Callaway, 489 F.2d
567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974).
has failed to make the proper showing that his case falls