Green v. Voight et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying 2 Motion for temporary restraining order. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/27/2016. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THEOPHILUS E. GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-203-T-33TGW

NANCY L. VOIGHT, U.S. ATTORNEY,
LEE BENTLEY, III, MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF FLORIDA U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
LORETTA LYNCH, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, ROBERT MCDONALD, U.S.
SECRETARY OF VETERAN AFFAIRS,
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION SYLVIA MAXWELL
BURWELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES JACK
LEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to pro se
Plaintiff

Theophilus

E.

Green’s

Motion

for

Temporary

Restraining Order (Doc. # 2), which was filed on January 26,
2016.

As explained below, the Court denies Green’s request

for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Discussion
Green

filed

a

sprawling

39-page

“Complaint

for

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ‘Three-Judge District Court
Requested’” against both governmental and private entities on
January 26, 2016. (Doc. # 1).

The Complaint is not divided

into

Counts

and

addresses

a

broad

range

of

topics.

Unfortunately, despite a diligent review, the Court is unable
to ascertain the relief that Green is seeking with any degree
of certainty.

Green specifies that the Court’s exercise of

subject matter jurisdiction is predicated upon the application
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the Complaint contains lengthy
statements that do not appear to relate to any claims for
relief.

For instance, page 24 of the Complaint states:

Wherefore the Plaintiff alleges that there existed
sufficient reason for a “reasonable man” to believe
that ongoing professional licensure fraud in
Illinois involving Chicago mayors and death penalty
violations consequent of Richard M. Daley’s obvious
legal incompetence, Fitzgerald’s prosecutorial
discretionary abuse benefitting Gov. George Ryan,
the presentation of a “Dr. Phil” as a professional
psychologist by an Illinois despite numerous
consumer complaints voi[ced] during the term of
Gov. Ryan, the manipulation of the audience
membership in Winfrey’s fraudulent 276 car giveaway
promotion that served as a “Thank You” to wives and
relatives of federal prosecutors, ongoing licensure
and child abuse protections benefitting the
religion of USA Fitzgerald and other Illinois law
enforcement officials, the numerous constitutional
violations obstructing the plaintiff’s due process
at all state and federal prosecutorial and judicial
levels, if anyone of the violations had been
reviewed by agents of the U.S. defendants,
sufficient interest would have uncovered frauds
that would have uncovered the Plos-Hurwitz-BendenGoodman-Fitzgerald-Madigan retaliatory conspiracy
and minimized all damages to the plaintiff.
(Doc. # 1 at 24).
In conjunction with the filing of the Complaint, Green
2

filed

the

present

Motion

requesting

the

issuance

of

a

Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. # 2). A party seeking a
Temporary Restraining Order must establish: “(1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable
injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that
the threatened injury outweighs any harm relief would inflict
on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of relief would serve
the public interest.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo,
403 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 2005). As the Plaintiff, Green
bears the heavy burden of persuasion as to each factor. Canal
Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974).1
Here, Green’s submission completely fails to address, and
accordingly, fails to establish, the existence of all required
elements. To begin, it is not clear what Green is alleging in
his Complaint, but he has not supplied additional information
in his TRO motion demonstrating that he is likely to prevail
on the merits in this suit.

Nor has Green even included the

blanket averment that he is likely to succeed on the merits of
any of his claims or contentions.
In addition Green has not described with particularity

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th
Cir. 1981), the Eleventh Circuit adopted all cases decided by
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals prior to the close of
business on September 30, 1981, as binding precedent.
3

any pending action or scenario which places him at risk of
suffering an irreparable injury. Instead of describing the
specific facts that Green believes give rise to a right to
relief,

Green

includes

vague

conclusions,

untethered

to

supporting factual allegations. For instance, Green indicates
as to irreparable injury:
As a consequence of USVA frauds, the plaintiff has
been rendered homeless and economically defenseless
by state and federal agencies acting in violation
of his rights as a veteran, elder protection laws
and the American’s with Disabilities Act and his
health, welfare and due rights as an honorably
discharged U.S.A.F. veteran and an American born
citizen, of American born parents and grand-parents
have all been removed causing eviction, healthcare
collapse and irreparable injury.
(Doc. # 2 at ¶ 4). Green’s Motion, while lengthy, does not
demonstrate

to

the

Court

that

he

faces

the

risk

of

an

irreparable injury.
Green

also

fails

to

explain

to

the

Court

why

the

threatened injury outweighs any harm relief would inflict on
the

non-movant

Defendants.

Instead,

Green

has

included

inflammatory remarks regarding the Catholic Church and has
strung together other, wide ranging, hot-button issues, none
tied to whether granting a Temporary Restraining Order would
serve the public interest.

These failures warrant denial of

Green’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order.

4

Furthermore, the Court notes that Local Rule 4.05, which
addresses Temporary Restraining Orders, states:
all applications for temporary restraining orders must be
presented as follows:
(1)

The request for the issuance of the temporary
restraining order should be made by a separate motion
entitled “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order”.

(2)

The motion must be supported by allegations of
specific facts shown in the verified complaint or
accompanying affidavits, 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
impracticable if not impossible (Rule 65(b), Fed. R.
Civ. P.)

(3)

The motion should also: (i) describe precisely the
conduct sought to be enjoined; (ii) set forth facts
on which the Court can make a reasoned determination
as to the amount of security which must be posted
pursuant to Rule 65(c), Fed. R. Civ. P.; (iii) be
accompanied by a proposed form of temporary
restraining order prepared in strict accordance with
the several requirements contained in Rule 65(b) and
(d), Fed. R. Civ. P.; and (iv) should contained or be
accompanied by a supporting legal memorandum or
brief.

(4)

The brief or legal memorandum submitted in support of
the motion must address the following issues: (i) the
likelihood that the moving party will ultimately
prevail on the merits of the claim; (ii) the
irreparable nature of the threatened injury and the
reason that notice cannot be given; (iii) the
potential harm that might be caused to the opposing
parties or others if the order is issued; and (iv)
the public interest, if any.

Id.
Here, Green ignores these important requirements.
5

The

Complaint is not verified, and Green has not submitted an
affidavit in support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order explaining why he is threatened with an irreparable
injury.

In addition, the Motion fails to set forth facts on

which the Court can make a reasoned determination as to the
amount of security that must be posted pursuant to Rule 65(c),
Fed. R. Civ. P.

The Motion is also deficient because it is

not supported by a legal memorandum addressing such required
issues as the likelihood that Green will succeed on the merits
of his claims, irreparable injury, harm to opposing parties
and others, and the public interest. Most glaringly, Green has
failed to describe the precise conduct that he seeks to
enjoin.

Thus, the Court denies the Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Pro

se

Plaintiff

Theophilus

E.

Green’s

Motion

for

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 2) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Tampa, Florida, this 27th
day of January, 2016, at 9:30 AM.

6