Faller v. Pelosi et al

Filing 41

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
AUGUSTA DIVISION
*
5

JAMES S. FALLER II,

*

Plaintiff,

*

CV 120-002

V.
*

NANCY PATRICIA PELOSI, et al.,

*

*

Defendants.

*
5
*
*

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff s ^^Emergency Motion

for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunctive Relief
and Request for Immediate Hearing."

(Doc. 36.)

On January 7,

2020, Plaintiff James S. Faller 11, proceeding pro se, filed the

present action against seven (7) members of the United States

Congress

and

^^the

deep

state."

(Doc.

1.)

Currently,

all

discovery is stayed until the Court rules on Defendants' motion
to dismiss.
to ''restrain
sedition,

(Doc. 15.)
the

treason

impede the Office

Now, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief

Defendants from engaging
and

acts to

overthrow

in

the

further
United

acts

of

States

or

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

reviewing

Plaintiff's

requests,

the

Court

DENIES

Plaintiff's

motion.

DISCUSSION

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
loss,

or

damage

party

can

be

will

heard

that immediate

result

the

movant

opposition."

in

to

and irreparable injury,

Fed.

before the

R.

Civ.

adverse

P.

65(b).

Granting a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction

is only proper

if the

moving

party establishes the following

four elements:

(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)).

^^Both

injunctions
granted

temporary

are

unless

restraining

extraordinary
the

movant

orders

remedies

clearly

that

and

preliminary

are

establishes

^not

the

persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites.'"

to

be

burden

of

Id. (quoting

Redford v. Gwinnett Jud. Cir., 350 F. App'x. 341, 345 (11th Cir.
2009));

see

also

United

States

v.

Jefferson

Cnty.,

720

F.2d

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
extraordinary and

drastic remedy not to be

granted

unless the

movant ^clearly carries the burden of persuasion' as to the four
prerequisites.").

Moreover,

^Mt]he

grant

or

denial

of

a

preliminary injunction is a matter within the discretion of the
district court . . . ."

First,

Plaintiff's

Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d at 1519.

motion

seeks

improper

relief.

Relief

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."

Burton

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.

The first

seven seek to enjoin Defendants from:

1.

Violating

the

intents

and

concepts

of

Executive

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
or thing[;]

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
of America[;]

5. Engaging in any act that can reasonably create the
appearance that they are violating the law or the
ethical
standards
12674 . . . [;]

set

forth

in

Executive

Order

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
America[; and]

7.
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

do

nothing

more

impermissible."

specific

than

^obey

the

law'

is

Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1209 (11th

Cir. 2006) (citing Burton, 178 F.3d at 1201).

Because the

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
in

the

instant

previously

action."

requested

to

(Doc.

36,

"disqualify

at

18.)

any

Plaintiff

United

States

Attorney from representing these defendants in the instant
action" in

an

21, at 6.)

earlier

motion.

(Mot.

to

Disqualify,

Doc.

As the Court previously ruled, "Plaintiff's

assertion that the United States Attorney is conflicted out

of

representing

Defendants

merely

because

Plaintiff

contends the United States Attorney should be investigating

the

alleged

conduct in

the

complaint is insufficient to

meet his extraordinarily high burden of showing the entire
United

States

Attorney's

Office

should

be

disqualified."

Case 1:20-cv-00002-JRH-BKE Document 41 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 5

(Doc. 30, at 2.)

element,
likelihood

claim

to

which
of

Thus, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first

requires

success

disqualify

on

the

a

showing

the

merits,

United

of

a

with

States

substantial

regards

to the

Attorney's

Office

from representing the Defendants.

Further,

the

Court

determines

a

hearing

is

not

necessary for the resolution of this motion.
CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff requests improper relief and has failed to
show

a

DENIES

substantial likelihood of success on the merits,' the

Plaintiff's "Emergency

Motion

for

Temporary

Court

Restraining

Order and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Request for Immediate

Hearing" (Doc. 36) and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension (Doc. 38.)
ORDER

ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia,

this

October, 2020.

j. rmjMl-^all, chief judge

UNITED^TATES DISTRICT COURT
-SeUTfT^RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

of