Griffin v. Calderon et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying without prejudice 24 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 8/30/2024. (ND)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DATHAN A GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:24-cv-1432-PGB-LHP

LUIS F. CALDERON, MICHAEL
MURPHY, ERIC J NETCHER,
JEFFREY L. ASHTON, STATE
OF FLORIDA, JONATHAN J.A.
PAUL, WEISSMAN PAUL,
PLLC, THE CITY OF ORLANDO,
CHRISTINE PEARSON,
JENNIFER ELIZABETH KASCH
and ZACHARY J OXLEY,
Defendants.

/
ORDER

This cause is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Dathan A. Griffin’s
(“Plaintiff”) Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 24 (the
“Motion”)). Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be denied without
prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 2, 2024.

(Doc. 1). In sum, Plaintiff alleges a series of claims against various Defendants,
who—according to Plaintiff—“acted in concert to deprive [] Plaintiff of his civil

rights in a scheme designed to seize his property and infringe upon his pursuit of
life, liberty, and happiness.” (Id. at p. 2).
Soon thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which
the Court denied because Plaintiff failed to comply with several requirements
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 6.02. (Docs. 2, 13).
Plaintiff then moved for a temporary restraining order, requesting that the Court
“temporarily restrain the prosecution of any and all proceedings in the Ninth
Judicial Circuit” related to the property at issue. (Doc. 17 (the “First TRO”)). The
Court denied the First TRO for failure to comply with various requirements under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 6.01. (Doc. 20 (the “Order”)).
Now, Plaintiff renews his request for a temporary restraining order on similar
grounds. (See Doc. 24).
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
District courts may issue temporary restraining orders in limited

circumstances. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1); Local Rule 6.01. The Court may grant
such relief in accordance with Rule 65 only if:
(1) “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,” FED. R. CIV. P.
65(b)(1)(A); and
(2) “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)(B).

2

In addition, Local Rule 6.01 requires that the movant present
its motion in the following manner:
(1) the movant must support the motion with “specific
facts — supported by a verified complaint, an affidavit, or
other evidence — demonstrating an entitlement to
relief”;
(2) the motion also must include:
(a) “a precise description of the conduct and the
persons subject to restraint”;
(b) “a precise and verified explanation of the
amount and form of the required security”; and
(c) a supporting legal memorandum including: (i)
“the likelihood that the movant ultimately will
prevail on the merits of the claim”; (ii) “the
irreparable nature of the threatened injury and the
reason that notice is impractical”; (iii) “the harm
that might result absent a restraining order”; and
(iv) “the nature and extent of any public interest
affected.”
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet virtually any of the aforementioned

requirements. 1 (See Doc. 24).
A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65

Plaintiff states that a copy of the Motion “will be mailed via U.S. mail” to
certain parties and that “an electronic copy . . . will be emailed to the parties
immediately upon filing of the stated document.” (Id. at p. 40). Merely informing

1

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, courts are not required to “act as de facto
counsel or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care,
LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020).

3

the Court that notice “will be” provided at some point in the future is insufficient.
Moreover, as indicated in the Order, Plaintiff must provide certification or proof of
such notice. (Doc. 20, p. 3). Without additional information, the Court cannot find
that Defendants have received notice of the Motion. 2
Considering Plaintiff failed to provide proper notice, Plaintiff must comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) for a temporary restraining order to
be issued without notice. At most, Plaintiff states that “[n]otice should not be
given” regarding the Motion because “[s]ince being notified” of the instant action,
Defendant Calderon “changed the pretrial hearing to a virtual hearing.” (Doc. 24,
p. 36). Ultimately, this is insufficient to satisfy Rules 65(b)(1)(A) and 65(b)(1)(B).
(See Doc. 24).
B.

Local Rule 6.01

Even assuming Plaintiff satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Plaintiff
still fails to comply with Local Rule 6.01. First, Plaintiff fails to provide specific
facts “demonstrating an entitlement to relief.” Local Rule 6.01(a)(2). While
Plaintiff alleges a series of facts, none of them demonstrate that Plaintiff is entitled
to an order restraining the “prosecution of any and all proceedings in the Ninth
Judicial Circuit” related to the property at issue. (See Doc. 24). Second, Plaintiff
fails to include “a precise description of the conduct and the persons subject to
restraint.” Local Rule 6.01(a)(3). Instead, Plaintiff vaguely alleges various forms of

2

To date, only two (2) of the eleven (11) Defendants have appeared in this action. (Doc. 22). As
such, the remaining Defendants are not currently receiving electronic notifications of
Plaintiff’s filings.

4

conduct against several of the eleven (11) Defendants, but he fails to connect the
conduct or the Defendants to the requested relief. (See Doc. 24). Moreover,
although Plaintiff discusses Defendants’ previous conduct, Plaintiff does not
address any ongoing conduct that would be “subject to restraint.” (Id. at pp. 7–24);
Local Rule 6.01(a)(3). Third, as to the legal memorandum, Plaintiff again fails to
establish the elements required under Local Rule 6.01(b). 3 (See id. at pp. 28–33).
Ultimately, because injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, proper
procedure must occur prior to the issuance of such relief. See Rumfish Y Vino Corp.
v. Fortune Hotels, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1231 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (citations
omitted). Consequently, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 24) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 30, 2024.

3

For example, Plaintiff fails to establish his likelihood of succeeding “on the merits of the
claim[s].” (Doc. 24, pp. 29–31). In the Motion, Plaintiff fails to plead any of the claims alleged
in his Complaint. (See id.; Doc. 1, pp. 78–93). Consequently, the Court is unable to assess
whether Plaintiff complies with Local Rule 6.01(b)(1). See Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo,
403 F.3d 1223, 1232 (citation omitted) (“The first of the four prerequisites to temporary
injunctive relief is generally the most important.”).

4

The Court highlights that this is its third Order denying Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.
(Docs. 13, 20). As such, all future motions filed by Plaintiff must comply with all applicable
rules and law. Specifically, Plaintiff shall comply with the Local Rules’ typography
requirements, as well as the restrictions on the length and content of a motion. See Local Rules
1.o8, 3.01. Failure to comply will result in the denial of the motion. This Court’s Local Rules
may be accessed at: https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules.

5

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

6