Stevenson v. Benjamin et al

Filing 100

RULING and ORDER: The 98 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Defendants shall file their response, if any, to Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction within the time limits imposed by Local Civil Rule 7. The 99 Motion to Correct Error is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 2/17/2021. (ELW)

Case 3:19-cv-00637-BAJ-SDJ

Document 100

02/17/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
KEVIN BENJAMIN, ET AL.

NO. 19-00637-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion seeking entry of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (Doc. 98). Liberally construed,
Plaintiff’s Motion seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from “tampering
with” and “mishandling” his legal mail. (Id. at 1-2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65(b) 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (emphasis added).
While the court is aware that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has failed to
comply with Rule 65(b). First, Plaintiff’s Motion does not include a certificate stating
his efforts to provide notice to Defendants’ attorneys, or explain the reasons why such
notice should not be required. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 65(b)’s notice
requirements, standing alone, is sufficient basis to deny his request for a TRO. See

Case 3:19-cv-00637-BAJ-SDJ

Document 100

02/17/21 Page 2 of 3

Hampton v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corp., No. 16-cv-632, 2016 WL 5796886, at *1
(M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2016) (denying pro se plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining
order due to failure to comply with Rule 65’s notice requirements); Spears v. Scales,
No. 15-11-SDD-RLB, 2016 WL 3774069, at *1 (M.D. La. July 13, 2016) (same).
Second, and more fundamentally, Plaintiff has failed to show that irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result in the absence of a TRO. The primary thrust of
Plaintiff’s instant complaint is that Defendants are “tampering with” and
“mishandling” his legal mail, thus preventing him from fully and timely responding
to Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 93). A review of the
record, however, reveals that Plaintiff has timely filed multiple requests for an
extension of the briefing deadline (see Docs. 93, 93, 97), and also timely filed an
opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion (see Doc. 95), all of which are
now pending before the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Through his various filings, Plaintiff
has adequately protected his legal rights and is not in jeopardy of dismissal for having
failed to oppose Defendants’ motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file their response, if any,
to Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction within the time limits imposed by
Local Civil Rule 7.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Error (Doc.

2

Case 3:19-cv-00637-BAJ-SDJ

Document 100

02/17/21 Page 3 of 3

99) is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s proposed corrected affidavit and declaration
shall be deemed timely filed and included among the exhibits supporting Plaintiff’s
request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 98).
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 17th day of February, 2021

_____________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3