LaFogg v. Meeks et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 28 is DENIED; that Defendants file a response to the allegations of the motion 28 on or before June 25, 2013, and that the motion is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings she deems appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/14/2013. (jg, ) Modified on 6/14/2013 to clarify docket text (jg, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SHERIFF DENNIS MEEKS et al.,
) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1103-WKW
Plaintiff Christopher Michael LaFogg filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Covington County Jail in
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”). As grounds for a TRO, Plaintiff asserts that Captain
Preston Hughes has threatened to give him a “disciplinary” and has placed him in
“Charlie block (which is isolation punishment)” in retaliation for Plaintiff’s having
filed this lawsuit. (Doc. # 28, at 1.)
A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice 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[ ] . . . certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice
and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). A temporary restraining order also requires the same four
elements as a preliminary injunction, and the movant bears the burden of
demonstrating that they are present. See Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles,
275 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001).1 Because a TRO is an “extraordinary and
drastic remedy,” the court should grant such relief only where the movant clearly
establishes all prerequisites. United States v. Georgia, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1372
(N.D. Ga. 2012) (citing Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff fails to satisfy at least two of the prerequisites for the extraordinary
remedy he requests. First, Plaintiff’s motion does not contain sworn testimony.
Second, Plaintiff has not certified in writing any reason why Defendants should not
have notice of the TRO motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining
order (Doc. # 28) is DENIED.
These four elements are “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the injury outweighs whatever damage an
injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) an injunction is not adverse to the public
interest.” Citizens for Police Accountability Political Comm. v. Browning, 572 F.3d 1213, 1217
(11th Cir. 2009).
It is further ORDERED that Defendants file a response to the allegations of the
motion (Doc. # 28) on or before June 25, 2013, and that the motion is REFERRED
to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings she deems appropriate.
DONE this 14th day of June, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?