Wells v. Edwards et al

Filing 2

RULING denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 10/5/2011. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ARDEN WELLS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-676-BAJ-DLD
DANIEL EDWARDS, SHERIFF OF
TANGIPAHOA PARISH, ET AL

RULING
This matter is before the Court on a motion by plaintiff, Arden Wells, for a
temporary restraining order (doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court to have
his name placed back on the October 22, 2011, primary election ballot for Sheriff of
Tangipahoa Parish.
According to the complaint, plaintiff executed a notice of candidacy on
September 6, 2011. Ten days later, however, he was served with a citation, a
petition to disqualify him, a subpoena for records over the past ten years and a
summons to appear at the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa
on September 19, 2011. Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of illegally obtained
evidence, he was coerced into executing a Notice of Withdrawal.
Plaintiff asserts that the state action was the result of conspiracy which
included attorneys Glen Galbraith, Jay Seale, Richard Schwartz, and Tangipahoa
Parish Sheriff Daniel Edwards. Plaintiff has also asserted claims against: “Cynthia
Bridges, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue, conducting business

in her official capacity”; “Krissy A. Thomas, Executive Assistant to Cynthia Bridges,
conducting business in her official capacity”; John Bel Edwards “Representative for
Legislative District 72 of the State of Louisiana . . . and brother of Sheriff Daniel
Edwards”; Jerome M. Winsberg, “who is appointed to sit as Judge Ad Hoc by the
Louisiana Supreme Court,” and who presided over the state court action at issue;
and Tom Schedler, the Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana “conducting
business in his official capacity.” (Id. at ¶3).
The complaint alleges that defendant, Glen Galbraith, “acting on behalf of
Daniel Edwards . . . conspired with Jay Seale to illegally obtain and divulge the
Complainant’s tax information in violation of the laws of the State of Louisiana.”
(Id.). According to the complaint, Galbraith filed the state court action in the name
of defendant, Richard Schwartz, who served as a “‘straw man’ for Sheriff Daniel
Edwards, . . . the real person instigating the suit.” (Id. at ¶6).
Plaintiff alleges that after all of the judges of the 21st Judicial District Court
recused themselves without stating just cause, Judge Jerome M. Winsberg
adjudicated the matter as Judge Ad Hoc.1 Complainant further alleges that Judge
Winsberg improperly admitted into evidence an email that was provided to

1

Plaintiff asserts that, in 2006, after Judge Winsberg sat as judge in the 21st Judicial
District Court in a matter captioned, State of Louisiana v. Arden Wells, No. 111568, plaintiff filed
an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, entitled Arden
Wells v. Scott Perrilloux, et al., Civil Action No. 06-10731, in which he sought a permanent
injunction to prevent Judge Winsberg from “ever sitting on any case in which he was a party.”
(Id. at ¶9).

2

defendant, Jay Seale, by defendant, Krissy Thomas, in violation of LSA–R.S.
§47:1508. Plaintiff further asserts that the document was inadmissible hearsay and
that it was admitted without foundation or proper authentication. The document
indicated that Arden Wells had not filed a state income tax return in the past five
years. (Id. at ¶9). According to plaintiff, the email communication was initiated by
defendant, John Bel Edwards, “acting under color of state law.” (Id. at ¶12).
Plaintiff notes that the qualifying form he’d signed requires a candidate to
state that “for each of the previous five years, I have filed my federal and state
income tax returns, have filed for an extension of time for filing either my federal or
state income tax return or both, or was not required to file either a federal or state
income tax return or both.” (Id. at 13). Plaintiff alleges that, faced with the improper
admission of the email into evidence, he executed a Notice of Withdrawal which was
subsequently filed by Galbraith into the records of the Secretary of State (Id. at
¶11).2
Plaintiff asserts that his withdrawal from the race was involuntary and coerced
by several of the plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶16). He seeks, in addition to the temporary
restraining order, a hearing, a permanent injunction, an injunction preventing Judge
Winsberg from participating in his official capacity in any case in which plaintiff is a

2

Plaintiff alleges that, at the time he signed the qualifying form, he was unaware of the
provision because it was written in “fine print” and he was not wearing his reading glasses when
he proofread the form (Id. at ¶ 13).

3

party or an attorney, damages for, inter alia, defamation, mental anguish, emotional
distress, damage to his reputation embarrassment, humiliation, and punitive
damages. (Id. at 16, 19).
“Injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy,’ and should only be
granted when the movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion.” Anderson
v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 360 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting, Holland Am. Ins. Co. v.
Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1974). “The party seeking such
relief must satisfy a cumulative burden of proving each of the four elements
enumerated before a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction can be
granted.” Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). “Specifically, the
movant must show: (1) a substantial likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits,
(2) a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not
granted, (3) that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the
injunction may do to defendant, and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will
not disserve the public interest.” Holland Am. Ins Co., 777 F.2d at 997 (quoting,
Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974).
Turning to the first element of plaintiff’s burden, the Court notes that plaintiff
seeks to have a federal district court review a state court’s evidentiary decisions and
interpretations of state law. In addition to the jurisdictional concerns raised by those
issues, plaintiff also seeks to have a Notice of Withdrawal, executed by a

4

sophisticated party, declared void for lack of consent.3 Though plaintiff states that
he signed the Notice of Withdrawal in order to prevent an adverse judgment in the
state court proceeding (doc. 1, ¶11), the Court notes that plaintiff would have had
an opportunity to seek state court appellate review of such an adverse judgment
had he not chosen to execute the Notice of Withdrawal.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to meet
his burden, for purposes of the motion for a temporary restraining order, of
establishing a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the motion by plaintiff, Arden Wells, for a temporary restraining
order is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 5, 2011.

____________________________
BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3

Plaintiff’s answer to the state court petition notes that he was a licensed attorney
practicing law in Louisiana until his license was suspended on November 7, 2007 (doc. 1-1, p.
14, ¶13).

5