Bollman et al v. Ciesla et al
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 20 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on June 6, 2014. (jas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
SCOTT BOLLMAN and JANELLE BOLLMAN,
as parents and next friends of L.B., a minor
Case No. 2:14-CV-02001
GREENWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT
OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff Scott and Janelle Bollman’s motion for a
preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) and brief in support (Doc. 21) and Defendant Greenwood
School District’s response (Doc. 22) and brief in support (Doc. 23).
The Bollmans ask the Court to issue a preliminary injunction directing Greenwood
School District to comply with Title VI. 1 However, the Court cannot grant such general “obeythe-law” injunctive relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (requiring in part that every order for a
preliminary injunction describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained or required); Calvin Klein
Cosmetics Corp. v. Parfums de Coeur, Ltd., 824 F.2d 665, 669 (8th Cir. 1987) (“Broad language
in an injunction that essentially requires a party to obey the law in the future is not encouraged
and may be struck from an order for injunctive relief, for it is basic to the intent of Rule 65(d)
that those against whom an injunction is issued should receive fair and precisely drawn notice of
what the injunction actually prohibits.”); see also Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41,
51 (2nd Cir. 1996) (“[A]n injunction must be more specific than a simple command that the
In particular, the motion asks “that the Court issue a preliminary injunction directing
Defendants to prevent any future harassment against L.B. pursuant to Title VI by his peers and
grant all other appropriate relief.” (Doc. 20, at ¶ 6). The brief in support concludes that “[T]he
Court should grant a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to comply with Title VI.”
(Doc. 21, at 5).
defendant obey the law.”); Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 895 F.2d 659, 668-69 (10th
Cir. 1990) (striking “obey-the-law” order from school desegregation injunction).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Doc.
20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2014.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. 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?