The Cooperative District of Houston County- Country Crossing Project et al v. Tyson et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 9 Motion for TRO based on the representations made on the record on February 1, 2010. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/1/2010. (br, ) Modified on 2/1/2010 to make the document type a Written Opinion (br, ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE COOPERATIVE DISTRICT OF HOUSTON COUNTY-COUNTRY CROSSING PROJECT, et al., Plaintiff, v. JOHN TYSON, etc., Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10cv49-MHT

Based on the representations made on the record on February 1, 2010, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Houston Economic Development Association's motion for a temporary restraining order (doc. no. 9) is denied. (1) As to plaintiff Houston Economic Development Association's "procedural" due process claim, it appears that at this time both the association and defendant John Tyson have adequate remedies to vindicate their rights and concerns in an orderly and reasoned manner and

without the "drama" that appears to have so far attended

this matter.

See McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th The association can file a state-

Cir. 1994) (en banc).

court civil action for review of the legality of the machines at issue, and Tyson can file a state-court civil action and obtain the immediate seizure of the machines by way of injunctive relief, if the state courts agree that his contentions are so strong as to entitle him to immediate relief. The court hopes that the parties will

pursue such orderly processes or something comparable to them. (2) As to the association's Fourth Amendment claim, because the association bears the burden of proof and because the court cannot say on the current record

whether a warrantless search would be impermissible for lack of probable cause that the machines at issue are illegal under the criteria set forth in Surles v. City of Ashville, ___ So.2d ___ (No. 1080826) (Ala. Jan. 29, 2010), and Barber v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., ___ So.2d ___ (No. 1080805) (Ala. Nov. 13, 2009),

2

immediate court.

relief

is

not

warranted

from

this

federal

In making this statement, the court should not

be understood to hold that it is appropriate for this court, as a federal court, to make a determination of the machines' legality, which is, of course, an essentially state-law issue. DONE, this the 1st day of February, 2010.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE