Faller v. Pelosi et al
ORDER denying 36 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 36 Motion for TRO; denying 36 Motion for Hearing; denying 38 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/14/2020. (pts)
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 41 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
JAMES S. FALLER II,
NANCY PATRICIA PELOSI, et al.,
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff s ^^Emergency Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunctive Relief
and Request for Immediate Hearing."
On January 7,
2020, Plaintiff James S. Faller 11, proceeding pro se, filed the
present action against seven (7) members of the United States
discovery is stayed until the Court rules on Defendants' motion
impede the Office
Now, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
Defendants from engaging
of the President, directly, indirectly, in
conspiracy or in complicity." (Doc. 36, ^ 1.) After carefully
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 41 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 5
Under Rule 65(b), a court may issue a temporary restraining
order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its
attorney only if ^^specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
complaint clearly show
and irreparable injury,
Granting a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction
is only proper
party establishes the following
(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 the harm the relief would inflict on the
non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would
serve the public interest.
Schmitt V. Reimer, No. 1:lO-cv-102, 2010 WL 3585187, at *1 (S.D.
Ga. Sept. 14, 2010) (quoting Schiavo v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223,
1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005)).
persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites.'"
Redford v. Gwinnett Jud. Cir., 350 F. App'x. 341, 345 (11th Cir.
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 41 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 5
1511, 1519 (llth Cir. 1983) (^'The preliminary injunction is an
drastic remedy not to be
movant ^clearly carries the burden of persuasion' as to the four
preliminary injunction is a matter within the discretion of the
district court . . . ."
Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d at 1519.
requesting the Court to instruct a Defendant to ''obey the law"
does not "satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 65(b) and
. would be incapable of enforcement."
v. City of
Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1201 (llth Cir. 1999) (citing Payne
V. Travenol Lab'ys, Inc., 565 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 1978).
Here, Plaintiff has listed eight requests for relief.
seven seek to enjoin Defendants from:
Order 12674 signed on April 12, 1989[;]
2. Encouraging, enabling, protecting, supporting, or
otherwise aiding, any person, enterprise, agency,
organization, faction or militia from engaging in any
act of violence, sedition, treason or crime against
the United States, its citizens or any person, place
3. Engaging in any act that could be reasonably
perceived as an act to weaken, interfere with,
obstruct, delay or overthrow the Office of the
President of the United States of America[;]
4. Engaging in any act that could be reasonably
perceived as an act to weaken, interfere with,
obstruct, delay or overthrow any government within the
United States of America, including the United States
5. Engaging in any act that can reasonably create the
appearance that they are violating the law or the
12674 . . . [;]
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 41 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 5
6. Promulgating any false or misleading information to
the Public or any office of the United States of
Misusing any official office or authority to
produce any delays or interference with the proper
administration of the Office of the President or any
other government office or agency.
(Doc. 36, at 17-18.)
Essentially, Plaintiff asks the Court
to instruct the Defendants to ^'obey the law."
^'It is well-
established . . . that an injunction demanding that a party
Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1209 (11th
Cir. 2006) (citing Burton, 178 F.3d at 1201).
relief is improper, the Court will not address the merits
of the first seven requests for relief.
Plaintiff's final request is to "prohibit the United
States Attorney from representing any of these defendants
Attorney from representing these defendants in the instant
21, at 6.)
As the Court previously ruled, "Plaintiff's
assertion that the United States Attorney is conflicted out
contends the United States Attorney should be investigating
complaint is insufficient to
meet his extraordinarily high burden of showing the entire
Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 41 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 5
(Doc. 30, at 2.)
Thus, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first
from representing the Defendants.
necessary for the resolution of this motion.
Because Plaintiff requests improper relief and has failed to
substantial likelihood of success on the merits,' the
Order and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Request for Immediate
Hearing" (Doc. 36) and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension (Doc. 38.)
j. rmjMl-^all, chief judge
UNITED^TATES DISTRICT COURT
-SeUTfT^RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?