Tringale v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al

Filing 15

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered denying 5 Motion for Injunctive Relief; granting 11 Motion for CM/ECF Access (Plaintiff shall attend an ECF training session offered by the clerk's office and also prove his proficiency on the use of the ECF system before an ECF login will be issued); and, finding as moot 13 Motion for Hearing. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DOMINIC TRINGALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS and SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 15-cv-11613-IT

ORDER
May 4, 2015
TALWANI, D.J.
Plaintiff Dominic Tringale filed a Complaint [#1] on April 16, 2015, alleging various
causes of action against Defendants in connection with his state court family and probate
proceedings. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed the following ex parte motions: (1) Motion for
Injunction [#5], in which Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65(b) barring the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from incarcerating him for
reasons relating to this action; (2) Motion to Impound [#7], in which Plaintiff seeks an order
directing this court or the Department of Justice to seize and make certified copies of Plaintiff’s
state court family and probate court case files and inquire as to whether audio recordings of his
state court proceedings exist; and (3) Motion to Compel [#9], in which Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling the State of New Hampshire to reinstate his driver’s license. On April 28, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for ECF Access [#11]. And on May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed an
Emergency Motion to Hear Four Filed Motions [#13], requesting that the court hear the motions

described above. Plaintiff requests that the court decide the above-referenced motions before he
serves Defendants with the Summons and Complaint.
Under Rule 65(b), a court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party only if the movant can “clearly show that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Because the court finds that Plaintiff has not met this
requirement, it DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for Injunction [#5].
The court further notes that “[a] preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is
an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that may only be entered if the plaintiff makes a clear showing that it
is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “To
obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating (1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is
withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the
injunction and the public interest.” Nieves–Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir.
2003). If Plaintiff renews his motion after Defendants have been served, he must satisfy this
standard in order for this court to grant his requested relief.
As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Impound [#7] and Motion to Compel [#9], the court declines
to address these motions until Defendants have been served and have had an opportunity to
respond to the motions. Plaintiff’s Motion for ECF Access [#11], however, is ALLOWED.
As a result of this order, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Hear Four Filed Motions [#13]
is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 4, 2015

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
2