United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON JUDGE
the Court is pro se Plaintiffs Motion for
Spears Hearing/Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.
14). Oral argument is not required. For the reasons
stated below, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.
alleges that he is the victim of "ongoing
retaliation" because he was transferred from East Baton
Rouge Parish Prison to Catahoula Correctional Center soon
after receiving a notice "informing [him] about a
temporary restraining order/requesting a spears (sic)
hearing." (Doc. 14 at p. 1). Plaintiff further alleges
he was put in a cell with an iron door and no windows, and
that all of his privileges were restricted. (Id. at
p. 2). Plaintiff avers that he was transferred to solitary
confinement on or about July 26, 2018, and was eventually
released and transferred back to the East Baton Rouge Parish
Prison on June 28, 2019. (Id. at p. 1, 2). Plaintiff
requests a Spears hearing and a Temporary Restraining Order.
(Id. at p. 2).
"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." Perez,
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
F.App'x 419, 421 (5th Cir.2013)). Thus, courts have held,
for example, that "jp]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." Munaf v.
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 Mktg.
Agency, 512 F.3d 727, 734 (5th Cir. 2008). 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) ("[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 granted a
Spears hearing and an injunction, without any further
discussion. Plaintiff fails to allege that that there are any
current ongoing violations of his rights, nor does he allege
that he suffered from any injuries or other conditions
related to the time allegedly spent in solitary confinement.
Court is required 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. Because 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.
Plaintiff has not met the basic pleading requirements to be
granted injunctive relief, the Court finds no need to order
that a Spears hearing be conducted to determine if Plaintiffs
motion for injunctive relief is frivolous. Plaintiffs motion
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion
for Spears Hearing/Temporary Restraining Order ...