Brujac v. Sharp et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting in part 54 Motion to Request the Court to Order the Clerk of Court to Provide Plaintiff with the Record. Plaintiff's request for a Temporary Restraining Order is granted on this 22nd day of May at 1:00 p.m., without notice due to the urgency of this matter. During the pendency of this Order all video footage for the tier on which the plaintiff's legal work was located from April 23, 2023, through April 28, 2023, shall not be allowed to be written over automatically an d shall be preserved. The said video footage, shall be produced to this Court within five (5) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff's legal materials shall be returned to him within five (5) days of the date of this Order. The United States Marshals Service shall serve Secretary James Leblanc, Warden Tim Hooper, and the Louisiana Attorney General. A hearing to determine whether to convert this temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction will be set on a future date if necessary. In all other regards, the plaintiff's Motion (R. Doc. 54) is DENIED. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 5/22/2023. (EDC)

Case 3:22-cv-00061-JWD-SDJ

Document 60

05/22/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ZLATKO BRUJAC (#392896)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
22-61-JWD-SDJ
DEMONTRE SHARP, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Request the Court to Order the Clerk of
Court to Provide Plaintiff with the Record (R. Doc. 54) which the Court construes as a Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff is seeking return of his
legal materials.
The plaintiff asserts that on the night of April 23, 2023, or in the morning of April 24,
2023, following a disciplinary infraction the plaintiff was placed on mental health watch and was
removed from his cell. When the plaintiff was returned to his cell on April 28, 2023, most of his
legal materials pertaining to this matter were missing. The plaintiff is seeking a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction with regards to the video footage for the tier where
his legal materials were located on from April 23, 2023 through April 28, 2023, and the return of
his property.
As a general rule, preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are designed to
preserve the status quo prior to the court's consideration of a case on its merits, and they are not
intended as a substitute for relief on the merits of the case. See generally Federal Savings & Loan
Insurance Corp. v. Dixon, 835 F.2d 554, 558 (5th Cir.1987); Shanks v. City of Dallas, Texas, 752
F.2d 1092, 1096 (5th Cir.1985). Otherwise, the normal procedures of litigation would be
circumvented by trying a case on the merits through a motion for injunctive relief.

USM-Certified

Case 3:22-cv-00061-JWD-SDJ

Document 60

05/22/23 Page 2 of 3

“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 Marketing Group., Inc. v. CDL Marketing, 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).
The plaintiff seeks only to maintain the status quo – access to his legal materials so he can
continue to prosecute the instant matter. Plaintiff’s lack of legal materials threatens to disturb this

Case 3:22-cv-00061-JWD-SDJ

Document 60

05/22/23 Page 3 of 3

Court’s docket. No harm will come to the defendants in this matter, and an injunction would not
disservice the public interest. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion (R. Doc. 54) is GRANTED, in part.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order is
granted on this 22nd day of May at 1:00 p.m., without notice due to the urgency of this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that during the pendency of this Order all video footage
for the tier on which the plaintiff’s legal work was located from April 23, 2023, through April
28, 2023, shall not be allowed to be written over automatically and shall be preserved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that said video footage, shall be produced to this Court
within five (5) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s legal materials shall be returned to him
within five (5) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service shall serve
Secretary James Leblanc, Warden Tim Hooper, and the Louisiana Attorney General.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing to determine whether to convert this
temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction will be set on a future date if necessary.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other regards, the plaintiff’s Motion (R. Doc.
54) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 22, 2023.
.

S

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