United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
BRLAN JACKSON UNITED STATES JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 6). Oral argument is not
required. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs Motion is
alleges that he was sprayed with pepper spray while he was
sleeping and that he has been threatened my multiple
Louisiana State Prison staff members to abandon his
Administrative Remedy Proceeding ("ARP") request.
(Doc 6.) Plaintiff also claims that he had been abused
physically and mentally, that he believes that he is in
danger at Angola, and that he should be transferred to
another facility. (Id.). Plaintiff also attached a
copy of the handwritten ARP to his motion. (Doc. 6-1).
Despite the Court's best efforts to decipher Plaintiffs
handwriting, the ARP is illegible and unintelligible.
"would be inequitable" to hold pro se
litigants to strict procedural standards and thereby punish
such litigants "for lacking the linguistic and
analytical skills of a trained lawyer." Peres,
312 F.3d at 194. Nonetheless, courts "still require
pro se parties to fundamentally 'abide by the
rules that govern the federal courts.'" E.E.O.C.
v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir.2014)
(citing Frazier v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 541
Fed.Appx. 419, 421 (5th Cir.2013)). Thus, courts have held,
for example, that "(p]ro se litigants must properly
plead sufficient facts that, when liberally construed, state
a plausible claim to relief, ... and brief arguments on
appeal." In re Emergency Room Mobile Servs.,
L.L.C., 529 B.R. 676, 683 (N.D. Tex. 2015).
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). At all 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). See also
Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. u. 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) ("[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 at 809.
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).
has not satisfied the basic elements required for the
imposition of immediate injunctive relief as set forth by
Ridgley because he fails to plead any facts that can
reasonably be interpreted as having met any of the
Ridgley criteria. Plaintiff merely argues that his
rights have been violated, and that he should be moved from
Angola, without any further discussion. Plaintiff fails to
allege that the complained of incident was anything other
than an isolated occurrence, nor does he allege that he
suffered from any injuries, or currently suffers any health
problems related to the alleged attack. Furthermore,
Plaintiff alleges that the pepper-spray incident happened on
May 19, 2018, over one year prior to the date the motion
sub judice was filed. (Doc. 6 at p. 1).
Court is called to review a pro se litigant's
complaint liberally, so as to glean a cause of action from
often inartfully pleaded complaints. The Court has complied
with this mandate. The Court cannot, however, be expected to
"extract blood from a stone" when a pro se
litigant does not allege even the bare minimum facts to
support a cause of action. As Plaintiff has not alleged any
facts that can be reasonably interpreted to address
any of the requisite criteria for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order, the Court cannot reach the full
merits of Plaintiffs request. Plaintiffs motion is
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. ...