McDaniel et al v. City and County of Denver et al
Filing
10
ORDER denying 9 Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/22/15.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00989-GPG
ASHLEY MCDANIEL
TONYA MCDANIEL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
DISTRICT TWO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
INTERNAL AFFAIRS,
INDEPENDENT MONITOR,
GLEN LEVY,
DIANE ARAGON,
OFFICER CHERLY SMITH,
OFFICER W. BOHM, badge number 13070,
OFFICER LITTLE, badge number 07040,
DETECTIVE LORI FREUND,
JUDGE KENNETH LAFF,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ pro se Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 9) (“TRO Motion”). The Court
must construe the motion liberally because Plaintiffs are not represented by an attorney.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se
litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ motion
for a TRO will be denied.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide as follows with respect to issuance
of a temporary restraining order:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without
written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney 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's attorney
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).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to issuance of a temporary
restraining order in this case. First, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint does not contain
specific facts that clearly show they will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage before the Defendants can be heard in opposition. The Amended Complaint
asserts nineteen (19) claims against eleven (11) separate defendants. However, none
of the claims appear to allege a loss, injury, or damage that will occur in the future.
Instead, Plaintiffs seek monetary and punitive damages for an alleged “secret civil
infraction investigation perpetrated by the District Two Police Department acting illegally
in a civil dispute between neighbors and property owners over a parcel legal description
misprint.” (ECF No. 8 at 4). The allegations in the Amended Complaint do not provide
specific facts to clearly show that Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable injury,
loss or damage if a TRO is not issued. Second, Plaintiffs do not indicate that they have
attempted to give notice to defendants or why such notice should not be required.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO will be denied. Accordingly, it is
2
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction filed on July 17, 2015, is DENIED.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
22nd
day of
July
, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
3
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?