Opiyo v. Strickler et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying plaintiff's Motion for TRO and denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction 62 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FREDERICK O. OPIYO,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-13609
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
DEPUTY H. BOEHM,
DEPUTY J. DARLING, and
DEPUTY WEDGE,
Defendants.
_________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 62)

Plaintiff Frederick Opiyo moves for an injunction against defendants
and their agents from subjecting him to threats of “physical violence,
intimidation, and retaliation for pursuing this action pending permanent
relief.” (Doc. 62 at PageID 597). Plaintiff’s case was closed on September
16, 2010, when summary judgment was granted for defendants Boehm,
Darling, and Wedge. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff thereafter filed three motions for
relief from judgment, (Doc. 43, 54, 63); all of which were denied, (Doc. 44,
55, 64).
The decision of whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction or

-1-

temporary restraining order lies within the discretion of the court. CSX
Transp., Inc. v. Tennessee State Bd. Of Equalization, 964 F.2d 548, 553
(6th Cir. 1992); Beacon J. Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Blackwell, 389 F.3d 683, 684
(6th Cir. 2004). In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order, the district court considers four factors:
I.

whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the
merits;

II.

whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury if the court
does not grant a preliminary injunction;

III.

whether a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm
to others; and

IV.

whether a preliminary injunction would be in the public interest.

G & V Lounge v. Michigan Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1076 (6th
Cir. 1994) (citing Int’l Longshoreman’s Ass’n v. Norfolk S. Corp., 927 F.2d
900, 903 (6th Cir. 1991), cert denied, 502 U.S. 813 (1991).
Here, plaintiff has zero likelihood of success on the merits. Summary
judgment was granted for the defendants. The court thereafter denied
plaintiff’s three motions for relief from judgment. Plaintiff does not make a
showing on any of the remaining factors. It is not clear that plaintiff would
suffer an irreparable injury without an injunction, what harm an injunction

-2-

would cause to others, nor whether an injunction would be in the public
interest. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
July 12, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Frederick Opiyo #39194039, FCI Bastrop,
P. O. Box 1010, Bastrop, TX 78602.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-