Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. State of Louisiana

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM RULING re 54 Corrective Document, filed by Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation, 52 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation. Signed by Chief Judge S Maurice Hicks, Jr on 1/11/2019. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
ATAKAPA INDIAN DE CREOLE NATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-0190

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA
MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the Court is Plaintiff Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against the State of Louisiana and the United
States of America, the defendants in this matter (“Defendants”). See Record Document
52 (subsequently corrected by Record Document 54). Plaintiff seeks a TRO to prohibit
Defendants from committing a variety of actions, many of which are unclear to the Court
from the motion, including, inter alia, “engaging in antitrust violations and monopolization
of domestic, international and intergalactic commercial markets,” illegally detaining
“petitioner and his [tribal] people as wards[] [or] pupils of the federal and state
government,” and from subjecting Plaintiff to further injury “caused by the United States[’]
voluntary unnecessary government shut down.” See id. at 4, 10, 11.
A TRO is a form of equitable injunctive relief that preserves the status quo of the
parties until there is an opportunity to hold a full hearing on an application for a preliminary
injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). “[A] court may issue a [TRO] 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

Page 1 of 3

it should not be required.” Id. 65(b)(1). In order to obtain a TRO, "the moving party must
establish four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a
substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury, (3) the
threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing
party, and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest." Harris v. Monroe City
Sch. Bd., No. 12-2180, 2012 WL 3548056, at *3 (W.D. La. Aug. 16, 2012) (quoting
Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991)). 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." Allied Marketing Group, Inc. v. CDL
Marketing, Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989).
In this case, the Court first notes that a final judgment was entered on August 27,
2018 and this case is closed. See Record Document 37. 1 Moreover, the Court need not
address whether Plaintiff has established all of the foregoing factors for temporary
injunctive relief because the Court finds that Plaintiff has clearly failed to satisfy the first
factor. Plaintiff has no likelihood of success on the merits because the Court has already
adopted the previously rendered Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge
Hanna in this case dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on
the ground that Defendants have not waived sovereign immunity in this case. See Record
Document 30 at 9. Plaintiff has presented no new arguments or legal authority to evidence
a waiver of sovereign immunity by any defendant. Thus, Plaintiff cannot hope to succeed
on its TRO against these same defendants. See id.; see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,

1

There are currently motions to amend (Record Documents 38 and 50) and to reconsider
(Record Document 39) pending. Rulings on those motions will issue in due course.
Page 2 of 3

546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.”).
Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED.
An order consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall issue
herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 11th day of January,
2019.

Page 3 of 3