COUGHLIN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Filing 37

DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF re 16 Motion requesting immediate relief By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PAUL M. COUGHLIN, JR.,
PLAINTIFF
V.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-470-DBH

DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF
The plaintiff believes that he is being harassed by the FBI. He also believes
that a federal warrant issued against him around March 7, 2016, in Philadelphia
PA, Addendum to Coughlin Aff. 1 (ECF No. 25-1), but I have no information about
that. He has sued the FBI asking that I enjoin that governmental agency from
harassing him. He has withdrawn his original claim for damages, but seeks
emergency relief.

He is proceeding without a lawyer, having dismissed his

lawyer—“a good lawyer and nice person”—because the lawyer was “content with”
a letter in which it was “formally stated” that the FBI was not investigating the
plaintiff. Pl.’s Resp. 6 (ECF No. 36). In his filings, the plaintiff has named a
private agency, its vehicles, Pl.’s Resp. 1, 2, and a private individual, Addendum
to Coughlin Aff. 2, Ex. to Addendum to Coughlin Aff. (ECF No. 25-2), and has
mentioned police cars, Addendum to Pleading 1 (ECF No. 18).

Yet he is

convinced that “Federal Law Enforcement” is to blame—“whom I believe to be

the FBI” employing private investigators. Fourth Addendum to Coughlin Aff. 1
(ECF No. 35). But he also says that “[i]t is possible this harassment is being
done by some other division of federal law enforcement,” Pl.’s Mot. for Immediate
Relief 2 (ECF No. 16), and that “I doubt it’s the ATF, or homeland security. I
suppose it’s possible it’s the U.S. Marshalls but obviously I can’t be sure.” Pl.’s
Resp. 4 (ECF No. 36).
The plaintiff is emotionally distressed and thinks that this court has the
remedy. But he has not shown grounds for emergency relief under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which
governs this court, has said: “The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is
likelihood of success on the merits: if the moving party cannot demonstrate that
he is likely to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors become matters of idle
curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9
(1st Cir. 2002).
The problem for the plaintiff is that he is unable at this time to
demonstrate that the FBI is the source of his harassment. He has only been able
to identify private individuals or entities or police as somehow involved, and he
can only speculate that the FBI is behind it all. Thus, he cannot show that he
has a strong likelihood of success on his claim that the FBI must be enjoined.
2

Essentially he wants this Court to find out for him who is responsible for the
conduct that troubles him, but that is not the Court’s job.
As a result, I DENY the request for immediate relief.
I do urge the plaintiff to continue to consult with his mental health
professionals in an attempt to alleviate his distress.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3