Spencer v. Rosso et al

Filing 130

RULING AND ORDER denying 88 Motion for Temporary Restraining and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 4/13/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDMOND SPENCER (# 253212)
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 15-78-JWD-RLB
WILLIAM ROSSO, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction (R. Doc.
88), wherein the plaintiff seeks to be provided with a copy of his “Indoor duty status,” for the
“EMG/NCS” ordered last year by a specialist to be conducted, and to be provided with stronger
seizure medication. For reasons explained herein, the plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (‘Rule‘) 65 provides:
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.
The plaintiff did not submit an affidavit, and his verified Complaint does not clearly
show immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition. Additionally, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and he
has not certified in writing any efforts made to give notice to defendants. The plaintiff has not
met the minimum requirements under Rule 65 for a TRO. The plaintiff’s Motion fails to even
address the requirements for a TRO or a preliminary injunction, which the Court now turns to
address.

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy; it is never awarded as
of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). See also Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989)
(preliminary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only if the
movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion with respect to all four factors”); Mississippi
Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985) (“[t]he
decision to grant a request for preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than
the rule”). The decision whether to grant or deny a request for a preliminary injunction is within
the sound discretion of the Court. See Allied Mlttg. Grp., Inc., 878 F.2d at 809.
At all times, the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff as to each of the four
elements. Specifically, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the
merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) the
threatened injury outweighs any harm that will result to the non-movant if the injunction is
granted; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Ridgely v. Fed.
Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 512 F.3d 727, 734 (5th Cir. 2008). If a plaintiff fails to meet his
burden regarding any of the necessary elements, the Court need not address the other elements
necessary for granting a preliminary injunction. See Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356, 261
(5th Cir. 1990) (declining to address the remaining elements necessary to obtain a preliminary
injunction after finding that the plaintiff failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits).
In the instant motion, the plaintiff asserts that he has been trying for over two months to
obtain a copy of his “Indoor duty status,” that an “EMG/NCS” was ordered last year by a
specialist, and that he has requested stronger seizure medication. For the purposes of obtaining a

preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. In particular, the plaintiff has
not shown, and does not even so much as allege that he will face a substantial threat of
irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, nor does the plaintiff address any other
requirement necessary in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.
Though the Court is mindful that the plaintiff is a pro se litigant, his motion remains
insufficient to warrant granting the immediate relief he seeks at this stage. Importantly, “only
those injuries that cannot be redressed by the application of a judicial remedy after a hearing on
the merits can properly justify a preliminary injunction.” Canal Auth. of State of Fla, v.
Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974). The plaintiff has failed to make the proper
showing that his case falls within this exceedingly narrow exception. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (R.
Doc. 88) be and is hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 13, 2016.

S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA