Bradford v. USA et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying 1 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 3/6/14. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

CHARLES H. BRADFORD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0496

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a pleading filed by Charles H. Bradford, pro se, on March 5,
2014, which the Court has construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order [Doc No. 1].
A party seeking a temporary restraining order must demonstrate by a clear showing: (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the
injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any harm to the
nonmovant that may result from the injunction; and (4) that the injunction will not undermine the
public interest. See Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572-73
(5th Cir.1974). Mr. Bradford’s motion is deficient in that he does not demonstrate specific facts
clearly showing that immediate and irreparable injury will result to him in the absence of a
temporary restraining order, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Additionally, the
Court finds that he has not made a clear showing that he has a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits. Mr. Bradford may still pursue his claim for money damages.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the motion [Doc No. 1] is DENIED.

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 6th day of March, 2014.