Champion v. Central AL Electric, et al

Filing 17

ORDER directing the Clerk to reopen this case for the purpose of permitting the court to rule on the present motion; DENYING 16 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Jo Ann Champion; dismissing this cause with prejudice; directing the cle rk to effect service on Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address set forth in Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order which is as follows: 284 Pinewood Drive, Millbrook, Alabama 36054. Signed by Judge Ira De Ment on 10/6/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Opinion# 2 Judgment)(cc, )

Champion v. Central AL Electric, et al

Doc. 17

Case 2:94-cv-01553-ID-JLC

Document 17

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION J O ANN CHAMPION, Plaintiff, v. C E N T R A L ALABAMA ELECTRIC CO OP ER AT IV E, et al., De fen dan ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C I VI L ACTION NO. 2:94cv1553-D (WO)

ORDER B e f o r e the court is Plaintiff's request for temporary injunction, filed October 6, 2 0 0 5 (Doc. No. 16), which the court construes as a motion for temporary restraining o r d e r . After careful consideration of the contentions of Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court finds that Plaintiff's motion i s due to be denied. It is well settled that a temporary restraining order ("TRO") is an extraordinary r e m e d y that should not be granted unless the movant demonstrates the following four e l e m e n t s: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of i r re p a r a b le harm if the TRO is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the movant o u t w e i g h s any harm to the nonmovant which may result from the issuance of a TRO; and (4) the TRO serves the public interest. See Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 199 5).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:94-cv-01553-ID-JLC

Document 17

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 2 of 3

T e n years ago, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion in the above-styled caus e, explaining why federal courts do not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the United States Constitution or statute to adjudicate a claim by a private citizen that a privately-o w n ed utility company wrongfully terminated the services of its customer. 1 This is true even where the utility company holds a monopoly in providing electrical serv ices to the area. See Kearson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 763 F.3d 405, 407 ( 1 1th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); (see also Champion v. Central Ala. Elec. Coop., et al., Civ. No . 2:94cv1553-D (M.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 1995).) No other basis for jurisdiction exists in t h i s dispute between Plaintiff and the named Defendants, all of whom are deemed citizens of the State of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Although the court is sympathetic to the plight of Plaintiff, it simply lacks j u r is d i c ti o n to decide this controversy. Because jurisdiction is absent, the court finds that P l a i n t i ff cannot demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. I t is, therefore, CONSIDERED and ORDERED as follows: ( 1 ) The Clerk is DIRECTED to reopen this case for the purpose of permitting the c o u r t to rule on the present motion;

In a telephone conference on October 5, 2005, Plaintiff's spouse stated that P l a i n t i ff never received a copy of the court's Memorandum Opinion entered in this cause on January 24, 1995. As a courtesy, the court has attached to this Order a copy of its Me moran d u m Opinion and Judgment for service on Plaintiff. Additionally, the court notes that defense counsel has indicated his willingness to d i s c u s s the instant matter with Plaintiff. Accordingly, on October 5, the court provided P l a i n ti f f' s spouse with the telephone number of J. Theodore Jackson, Jr., Esquire, of Rush ton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, PC, Montgomery, Alabama. Again, Mr. Jackson's telep hon e number is 334-206-3252. 2

1

Case 2:94-cv-01553-ID-JLC

Document 17

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 3 of 3

( 2 ) Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order be and the same is hereby D E N IE D ; ( 3 ) this cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; and ( 4 ) the clerk shall effect service on Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt r e q u e s te d , to the address set forth in Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order w h i c h is as follows: 284 Pinewood Drive, Millbrook, Alabama 36054. D O N E this 6 th day of October, 2005. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3