Vallambrosa Plantation, LLC et al v. Sikorsky et al

Filing 18

ORDER that plaintiffs' objections to 12 Order are Overruled and the Temporary Restraining Order will not be amended. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 8/12/15. (bcw)

r

rr

r L. c.
DISTRICT COURT
U.S.
sVAN;AH DIV.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

AUG 12 11115
VALLAMBROSA PLANTATION, LLC;
JERRY WILLIAMS; and TAMMY LEE
WILLIAMS;

k/

CLERK
SO. ST. OF G

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. C415-202

V.

DAVID SIKORSKY and MARY
SIKORSKY,
Defendants.

ORDER
On July 31, 2015, the Court granted Iiin part the
parties' Consent Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
(Doc. 12.) In that order, however, the Court rioted that it
would not include in the Temporary Restraining Order the
parties' request that "[t]he U.S. Marshals for the Southern
District of Georgia . . . assist Plaintiffs in removing
Defendants from the above described real property and
roadways or portions of roadways immediately contagious
[sic] to Plaintiffs' real property." (Id. at : (alteration
in original) (quoting Doc. 11, Attach. 1 at 2) .) Because
this was an alteration of the parties' original request,
the Court provided ten days to file any objections to that
omission. (Id.)

In response, Defendants stated that they had no
objection. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiffs, on the other hand,
objected to the omission. Specifically, Plaititiffs insist
that assistance from the Marshals Service is due
to Defendant David Sikorsky's history of violence and
mental disorder, stockpile of approximtely thirty
firearms, and habit of routinely returning to the area of
Plaintiffs' property. (Id.) Plaintiffs maintain that they
would be in imminent danger should Defendant David Sikorsky
return to the property, leaving no time to moMe this Court
for appropriate relief. (Id. ¶ 12.) Basd on these
circumstances, Plaintiffs request that the Court provide
them with greater protection and more immediate relief by
"direct[ing] federal law enforcement officers to take the
necessary steps to protect life and property." (Id. ¶ 11.)
Unfortunately, Plaintiffs wholly misuderstand the
nature and role of the United States Marshals Service.
Created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, the U.S. Marshals
Service was granted authority to support fderal courts
within their districts and to carry out lawful orders of
the court. See United States Marsh1s Service,
www.usmarshals.gov/history/broadrange.htm (last visited
Aug. 8, 2015). The Marshals Service's primary function is
to support federal courts by serving subpoens, summonses,

2

writs,

warrants,

and other court issue

processes;

arresting and maintaining custody of prisoner; paying the
fees and expenses of the clerk of court, attorneys, jurors,
and witnesses. Id. Congress or the President has, on
occasion, tasked the Marshals Service with extraordinary
missions over its history, such as "registering enemy
aliens in time of war, capturing fugitive slaves, sealing
the American border against armed expeditions aimed at
foreign countries and swapping spies with the Soviet
Union." Id.
However, Plaintiffs want the Marshals !

Service to

assume another entirely different role, namey to act as
Plaintiffs' own private, on-call police force. This is a
task for which the Marshals Service is untr4ned and illequipped. That is not to say that the Marhals Service
would be unable to perform such a function, only that the
local authorities are in a far better position to enforce
state trespass laws, and protect life and property. On this
point, the Court notes that the Temporary Restraining Order
simply prohibits Defendants from committing trespass, which
is already prohibited by state law. Therefore, Plaintiffs
should contact local law enforcement for any immediate
relief from illegal actions by Defendants or any other
individuals. To seek relief from this Court for a violation

3

of the Temporary Restraining Order, however

Plaintiffs

must still move the Court for relief.
For

these

reasons,

Plaintiffs'

objections

are

OVERRULED and the Temporary Restraining Order will not be
amended. As noted in the Court's previous order, the
Temporary Restraining Order will remain in place until
October 29, 2015. Should either party desire, it may move
for the dissolution of the Temporary Restaining Order
prior to that date.
1014

SO ORDERED this /2day of August 2015.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

IM