Mitchell v. Bentley et al

Filing 12

ORDER entered 10 Motion for Temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Having RECONSIDERED the February 16, 2012 Order (Doc. 11), it is hereby ORDERED that Doc. 11 is RESCINDED; Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 10) is DENIED; and the February 28, 2012 hearing (as well as briefing related to same) is CANCELED. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 2/17/2012. (mca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEWIS MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
ROBERT BENTLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-00687-KD-M

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on sua sponte reconsideration of its February 16, 2012 Order
(Doc. 11) concerning “Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
and Memorandum in Support” (Doc. 10).
Plaintiff seeks entry of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the
Probate Court and/or counsel for Ms. Parker, to prevent disbursement of the proceeds from a state court
action to Ms. Parker. As a general rule, a court may not enter an injunction against persons who are not
parties to the case before it. Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 117 (1897). Courts have distinguished
between entering an injunction against a non-party, which is forbidden, and holding a non-party in
contempt for aiding and abetting in the violation of an injunction that has been entered against a party,
which is permitted. Additive Controls & Management Systems Inc. v. Flodata Inc., 96 F.3d 1390, 1395
(Fed. Cir. 1996); see also e.g., Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL 878 v. Abbott Labs., 72 F.3d 842,
842-843 (11th Cir. 1995) (affirming denial of motion for preliminary injunctive relief against nonparties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)); Shaw v. Dodson, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 773443, *2 (S.D.
Ga. Feb. 28, 2011) (noting that the court had denied the original motion for a temporary restraining
order because the Court “has no jurisdiction to issue an Order against persons who are not parties to this
case[]”).
1

Having RECONSIDERED the February 16, 2012 Order (Doc. 11), it is hereby ORDERED
that Doc. 11 is RESCINDED; Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 10) is DENIED; and the February 28, 2012
hearing (as well as briefing related to same) is CANCELED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 17th day of February 2012.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DUBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2