Clements v. Scott et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/11/2018. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LOUIS MATTHEW CLEMENTS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:18-cv-178-FtM-99CM

RICK SCOTT, PAM BONDI and
STEPHEN B. RUSSELL,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements’ Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 11). For the following
reasons, the Court denies his motion because it does not meet the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
To best the Court can tell, Clements brings this action because he wants the Court
to

declare

Florida Statute §

768.28, which

addresses

sovereign

immunity,

unconstitutional under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). He seeks this declaration to help win
his appeal in Florida court. A few years ago, Clements sued state entities like the State
of Florida Office of the Attorney General, Lee County Sherriff’s Office, and Florida
Department of Corrections for malicious prosecution. See Clements v. State of Florida,
No. 16-CA-4523 (Fla. Cit. Ct.). The Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

largely dismissed his claims in part because of immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28.
Clements has appealed the dismissal and is awaiting a decision.

Consequently,

Clements seeks an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in
this case because “[u]nless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to enforce
FL.S. § 768.28, specifically, FL.S. § 768.28(9)(a), putting Plaintiff’s pending State Case
(16-CA-004523/2D17-4961 [20th Judicial Circuit of Florida and Florida 2nd District Ct. of
Appeals (ACTIVE)] in jeopardy of being lost because this unconstitutional FL statue [sic]
is still active.”2 (Doc. 11 at ¶ 4).
Rule 65 governs requests for temporary restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions. A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice only if “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 the moving party “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)(A)-(B); see also Local
Rule 4.05(b)(2) (stating a motion for temporary restraining order “must be supported by
allegations of specific facts shown in the verified complaint or accompanying affidavit, not
only that the moving party is threatened with irreparable injury, but that such injury is so
imminent that notice and a hearing on the application for preliminary injunction is
impractical if not impossible”).
Even under the most liberal construction of Clements’ motion, he has failed to meet
the prerequisites for the exceptional remedy of a temporary restraining order. There is

2

Clements also notes that he is waiting for the assigned Magistrate Judge to rule on his
motion to appear in forma pauperis in this case, which he filed on March 16, 2018. (Doc.
11 at ¶ 3).

2

no affidavit that provides facts showing that Clements is in need of protection. Nor has
he filed a verified complaint or given the certification needed under Rule 65(b)(1)(B). He
also has not alleged, much less satisfied, the burden of proving that he has a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, which is a prerequisite to the grant of a temporary
restraining order. McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep’t, 455 F. App’x 874,
878 (11th Cir. 2011); see Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034–
35 (11th Cir. 2001) (listing the elements for a temporary restraining order). In addition,
Clements has not shown that he faces a substantial threat of an immediate or irreparable
injury from Defendants. Because both a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
and irreparable injury are also prerequisites to a preliminary injunction, Clements’ request
for a preliminary injunction as an alternative relief fares no better than his request for a
temporary restraining order. What is more, Clements has also not given any facts that
show the “emergency” nature of his motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 11th day of June 2018.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3