Amir El v. Louisiana State et al
ORDER AND REASONS denying 54 Motion for Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 10/3/2017. (Reference: All cases)(cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KING SANDI AMIR EL
LOUISIANA STATE, ET AL.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief
(Rec. Doc. 54) pursuant
applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic
remedy” that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S.
674, 689 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction
is not granted; (3) that their substantial injury outweighs the
threatened harm to the party whom they seek to enjoin; and (4)
that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the
public interest. Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo Cty. Tex.,
Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2012); accord Canal
Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974).
The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is
discretionary with the district court. Miss. Power & Light Co. v.
United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).
However, because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary
remedy, it “should not be granted unless the party seeking it has
clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.”
Suehs, 692 F.3d at 348. Consequently, the decision to grant a
preliminary injunction “is the exception rather than the rule.”
Miss. Power & Light Co., 760 F.2d at 621.
Plaintiff claims that he is a “Free Moor, of the Moroccan
Empire,” and as such, he requests that the Court enjoin Jefferson
Parish and the State of Louisiana, “et al,” 1 from referring to
Plaintiff as “Carlton Clennon Morris” or “King Saudi Amir El” and
from identifying Plaintiff as a United States citizen. Plaintiff
claims that the “activities” committed by the defendants are
prejudicial “to the birth rights and obligations of Free Moors in
North America who are not born or naturalized within the limits of
the United States.” (Rec. Doc. 54 at 5.)
Even if Plaintiff were able to demonstrate a strong likelihood
of success on the merits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. Holland Am. Ins.
1 Plaintiff initially filed suit against Louisiana State, Jefferson Parish, John
Bel Edwards, Paul D. Connick, Jr., D. Boudreaux, and Newell Normand. All but
Newell Normand have been dismissed from this lawsuit. (Rec. Docs. 38, 43.)
Plaintiff recently filed another suit against Louisiana State, which the Court
consolidated with this action. (Rec. Doc. 51.)
Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985)
(Irreparable harm must be more than “an unfounded fear on the part
of the applicant.”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 3rd day of October, 2017.
CARL J. BARBIER
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?