Smith v. Department of Health and Hospitals State of Louisiana et al
Filing
56
ORDER & REASONS: denying as moot 48 Motion for Emergency Expedited Injunction Relief Pending Appeal; denying 53 Motion for Leave to File Reply; denying 54 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 9/12/14. (sek)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SMITH
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 12-3057
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HOSPITALS STATE OF LOUISIANA
ET AL.
SECTION: "J” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before
the
Court
is
a
Motion
for
Emergency
Expedited
Injunction Relief Pending Appeal (Rec. Doc. 48) filed by Carolyn
Smith in her role as tutrix for Plaintiff Thomas J. Smith and
oppositions
filed
by
Defendants
the
Louisiana
Department
of
Health and Hospitals (Department of Health and Hospitals), South
Central Louisiana Human Services Authority (South Central), and
Eastern Seals Louisiana, Inc. (Eastern Seals). (Rec. Docs. 51,
52) Having considered the motion and memoranda of counsel and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED
for the reasons set forth more fully below.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND FACTS
This
government
action
arises
entities,
from
whom
Plaintiff’s
he
alleges
1
claims
violated
against
his
four
federal
statutory and constitutional rights by reducing his weekly inhome care hours. (Rec. Doc. 48) In
2012, Plaintiff brought suit
in the Seventeenth Judicial District for the Parish of Lafourche
against the Department of Health and Hospitals, South Central,
Eastern Seals, and Lafourche Arch, seeking review of a state
administrative law judge’s decision to affirm the decision to
reduce Plaintiff’s weekly in-home care. (Rec. Doc. 22-1, Exh. A,
p. 21)
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. This Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis, and Plaintiff filed a
pro se Complaint with
this Court on January 9, 2013. (Rec. Docs. 1-3) In his Complaint,
Plaintiff claimed to “transfer” his pending state court action to
this Court for review. (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 1) Magistrate Judge
Knowles considered the Complaint to be an attempt to remove
Plaintiff’s own action and issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the action was remanded to state court. (Rec.
Doc. 4)
On
February
13,
2013,
Plaintiff
objected
to
Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff informed this Court
that
he
had
erroneously
believed
that
it
was
necessary
to
transfer his pending state court action to this Court in order to
2
commence an action here asserting federal causes of action. (Rec.
Doc. 5) He explained his intention to file a separate action in
this
Court.
Id.
This
Court
sustained
Plaintiff’s
objection,
rejected Magistrate Judge Knowles’ recommendation, and granted
Plaintiff
federal
leave
causes
to
of
file
an
action.
amended
(Rec.
Doc.
complaint
6)
asserting
Plaintiff
the
filed
an
Amended Complaint on March 1, 2013. (Rec. Doc. 7)
On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Permanent
Restraining Order. (Rec. Doc. 8) This Court denied Plaintiff’s
Motion, finding that Defendants were at no time served with
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 11) The Motion was
denied without prejudice to re-file after Defendants were served
and afforded the opportunity to submit responsive pleadings. Id.
Upon
receiving
service
of
the
Amended
Complaint,
each
Defendant filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and for lack of subject
matter
jurisdiction.
(Rec.
Docs.
20,
22
&
24).
This
Court
rendered Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with
prejudice on December 16, 2013. (Rec. Docs. 36, 37). Plaintiff
appealed. (Rec. Doc. 38)
Plaintiff
filed the instant Motion for Emergency Expedited
Injunction Relief Pending Appeal with this Court on July 31,
3
2014. (Rec. Doc. 48) On August 8, 2014, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the
District Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Smith ex
rel. Smith v. Dep't of Health
& Hosps. of La., No. 13-31305,
2014 WL 3888239 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2014); (Rec. Doc. 55).
On August 19, 2014, Defendants the Department of Health and
Hospitals and South Central filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Emergency Expedited Injunction Relief Pending Appeal.
(Rec. Doc. 51) Eastern Seals likewise filed an Opposition on
August 19, 2014. (Rec. Doc. 52) On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff
requested leave to file replies to both oppositions. (Rec. Docs.
53-54)
PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "misconduct" prevents him
from
fully
litigating
his
appeal.
(Rec.
Doc.
48,
p.
1-2)
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have intimidated,
harassed, and filed false allegations against him, causing him
"irreparable harm." Id. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against
this behavior and, additionally, asks this Court to reinstate his
medical services pending the appeal of this Court's dismissal of
his complaint. (Rec. Docs. 36-37, 48)
The Department of Health and Hospitals and South Central
4
urge
this
Court
to
Injunction
Pending
opposition
asserts
deny
Plaintiff’s
Appeal
that
for
Motion
three
Plaintiff’s
for
reasons.
motion
is
Emergency
First,
the
procedurally
deficient for being vague and overly broad and for addressing
issues
unrelated
to
the
instant
case.
Moreover,
Plaintiff’s
motion is moot because there is no longer an appeal pending
before the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the
District
Court’s
Additionally,
decision
Plaintiff's
to
dismiss
claim
Plaintiff’s
regarding
complaint.
"misconduct"
by
Defendants, which Defendants believe is related to their random
health
and
wellness
already conducted
checks,
is
moot
because
Defendants
have
the visit and such conduct cannot prevent
Plaintiff from litigating the appeal when the appeal is no longer
pending. Finally, Plaintiff’s motion fails to show that his claim
meets the requirements of a temporary injunction. Accordingly,
the Department of Health and Hospitals and South Central ask this
Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion.
Eastern Seals likewise urges this Court to deny Plaintiff’s
Motion for Emergency Injunction Pending Appeal. Eastern Seals
stresses that Plaintiff’s motion seeking an injunction pending
his appeal is now moot. Specifically, Eastern Seals asserts that
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot because it is
5
no longer possible for this Court to grant Plaintiff the relief
he seeks. Accordingly, Eastern Seals asks this Court to deny
Plaintiff’s motion.
LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction may only be
granted if the movant establishes the following four factors:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) a substantial threat that
failure to grant the injunction will result
in
irreparable
injury;
(3)
that
the
threatened injury outweighs any damage that
the injunction may cause the opposing party;
and (4) that the injunction will not disserve
the public interest.
Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809
(5th Cir. 1989)(citations omitted).
Because
a
temporary
restraining
order
or
preliminary
injunction is an “extraordinary remedy,” the moving party carries
the heavy
burden of proving all four factors. See Mississippi
Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 622
(5th Cir. 1985).
Here, Plaintiff seeks a temporary injunction 1) preventing
alleged harassment by Defendants so that he may focus on his
appeal and 2) reinstating his medical services pending appeal.
6
Plaintiff does not mention the four factors that must be proven
before a court may grant injunctive relief, nor do Plaintiff's
allegations reveal them to be true. See (Rec. Doc. 48) Plaintiff
has failed to carry his burden of proof. Additionally, since
Plaintiff filed his motion for an injunction pending appeal, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed
this Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's suit, which included a
request for permanent injunctive relief. This Court cannot grant
injunctive relief pending appeal when an appeal is not pending;
Plaintiff's motion is now moot. See DeSimone v. Linford, 494 F.2d
1186, 1187 (5th Cir. 1974)(per curiam)(holding moot plaintiff's
appeal of a district court's denial of injunctive relief pending
resolution
of
plaintiff's
administrative
appeal
when
the
administrative appeal was affirmed during the pendency of the
appeal from the district court's denial).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency
Expedited
Injunction
Relief
Pending
Appeal
(Rec
Doc.
48)
is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to
File a Reply (Rec. Docs. 53, 54) are DENIED.
7
New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of September, 2014.
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
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?