Thompson v. Boulder County Housing Authority et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/17/16.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 16-cv-00361-GPG
ANDREA R. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOULDER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
FRANK ALEXANDER,
WILLA WILLIFORD,
AMANDA GUTHRIE,
CHERYL SEARS,
KRISTINA GONZALEZ,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (“TRO motion”) (ECF No. 3) filed pro se on February
12, 2016. In Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1), which was filed the same day as the TRO
Motion, Ms. Thompson alleges that her constitutional rights were violated because when
she refused to sign a Repayment Agreement (which she claims contained a
miscalculation of her rent) and filed a complaint with HUD, the Defendants retaliated
against her. According to Plaintiff, Defendants retaliated against her by conducting an
investigation to prove that another individual was a resident in her home in order to
terminate her Section 8 voucher. As a result, she alleges that her Section 8 voucher will
be terminated as of February 29, 2016 and she will suffer irreparable harm if preliminary
1

injunctive relief is not granted.
The Court must construe the TRO motion liberally because Ms. Thompson is 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 stated below,
the TRO motion 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 Plaintiff is not entitled to issuance of a temporary restraining
order. Plaintiff does not indicate that she has made any attempts to give notice to
defendants regarding this TRO motion or why such notice should not be required.
Further, injunctive relief is considered an "extraordinary remedy" and the movant
must demonstrate a "clear and unequivocal right" in order to have a request granted.
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2003).
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a substantial likelihood of
prevailing on the merits, that she will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues,
that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may
2

cause the opposing party, and that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the
th

public interest. See Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10 Cir. 1980). In an attempt
to demonstrate irreparable harm, the TRO Motions states:
Application of this “Ordinance” will imminently and irreparably
harm the Plaintiff not only by depriving her of her fundamental
rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution
of the United States of America but will substantive due
process [sic], but also by subjecting the Defendant and her
minor children to loss of liberty of irreparable harm [sic], so too
would be the Defendant and her minor children’s’ [sic] loss of
their liberties the source of their livelihood.
...
Only an order from this Court will forestall the immediate,
irreparable, and irreversible harm posed to the Plaintiff’s and
her children’s “Civil Rights” and “Liberties” and to remain free
from unreasonable interference by the State.
Even one week without such an order will subject the
Defendant and her children to irreparable harm which will
never ever recover.
(ECF No. 3 at 2). These conclusory allegations fail to demonstrate irreparable harm.
Likewise, the TRO motion fails to satisfy the other requirements necessary for a
preliminary injunction. As a result, Ms. Thompson fails to demonstrate a clear and
unequivocal right to have her TRO motion granted.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s TRO motion will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is denied.

3

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

17th

day of

February

, 2016.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

4