Doe et al v. St. James Parish School Board et al
ORDERED that the 7 motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction is DISMISSEDAS MOOT. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/13/2015. (blg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN DOE, ET AL.
ST. JAMES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
On October 22, 2015, John and Jane Doe filed the above-captioned lawsuit on behalf of their
child, Child Doe (collectively, “plaintiffs”), alleging constitutional violations in connection with the
suspension and expulsion of their child from the St. James Parish Math and Science Academy.1
Plaintiffs have now filed a motion2 for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction
allowing their son to play in a high school football playoff game on November 13, 2015.
“To obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish
the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) there is a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable injury will result if the
injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant;
and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Khan v. Ft. Bend
Indep. Sch. Dist., 561 F. Supp. 2d 760, 763 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Hittner, J.).3 Such an injunction is an
R. Doc. No. 1, at 2-3.
R. Doc. No. 7.
In addition, the Court “may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies
in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R.
extraordinary remedy which should only be granted if plaintiffs carry the burden of persuasion with
respect to each factor. See id.
Considering the motion, the record in this case, and the applicable law, the Court finds that
plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of entitlement to a temporary restraining order. See
Khan, 561 F. Supp. 2d. at 764-67; see also Nevares v. San Marcos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 111
F.3d 25, 27 (5th Cir. 1997) (“This court has also rejected arguments that there is any protected
interest in the separate components of the educational process, such as participation in
interscholastic athletics.”).4 Accordingly, the motion for a temporary restraining order should be
denied. Furthermore, because the requested relief relates to participation in a high school football
game scheduled to take place this evening, any request for a preliminary injunction is moot.5
Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
The Court attempted to conduct a telephone conference with counsel. Counsel for defendants
(who have not yet appeared in this matter) was served by email with the motion, see R. Doc. No. 7,
at 2, but he could not be reached. The Court need not decide any issues related to defendants’
notice and/or opportunity to be heard because plaintiffs’ motion is facially insufficient to
warrant a temporary restraining order.
Plaintiffs have not cited any authorities suggesting that Louisiana law provides greater
protections with respect to the injury alleged or the relief sought under these circumstances.
Plaintiffs’ motion is directed to a November 13, 2015 playoff game. R. Doc. No. 7-1, at 2.
If plaintiffs’ son’s team should advance in the playoffs, this order does not preclude plaintiffs from
filing a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction; however, for the reasons set forth above, the
Court harbors significant doubts as to whether plaintiffs can make the requisite showing for any such
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction is DISMISSED
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 13, 2015.
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?