Selensky v. Green
ORDER denying 1 Motion for TRO, without prejudice to her ability torenew such Motion if and when she corrects the defects as set out. Signed by Judge William H. Steele on 1/22/2010. Copies to parties & finance. (mpp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION LINDA CONE SELENSKY, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE MATTHEW GREEN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION 10-0041-WS-C
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on pro se plaintiff Linda Cone Selensky's Motion to File Restraining Order (doc. 1). The gravamen of the Motion is that plaintiff seeks to have this Court enjoin defendant, Mobile Municipal Court Judge Matthew Green, from enforcing orders against her in what are apparently landlord-tenant proceedings "to allow [her] the extra time that is needed to be able to find a proper home for [her] and [her] animals." (Doc. 1, at 2.) Plaintiff's Motion is improper at this time for four reasons. First, she has failed to file a complaint, as is necessary to commence a civil action in federal court. See Rule 3, Fed.R.Civ.P. ("A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court."). Second, she has failed to identify any basis on which she contends that federal jurisdiction exists. See Rule 8(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. (a pleading that states a claim for relief must include "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction"). Third, plaintiff has neither paid the $350 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Fourth, plaintiff has not complied with the specific requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., for issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion is denied, without prejudice to her ability to renew such Motion if and when she corrects these defects. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2010. s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 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?