Garrison v. Williams-Bennett et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 6 Plaintiff's Motion for TRO. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL GARRISON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-12823 KYRA WILLIAMS-BENNETT & MICHAEL EGEN, Defendants. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER” On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff Michael Garrison filed a pro se Complaint challenging the constitutionality of various conditions imposed on his parole. Plaintiff also sought in forma pauperis status and requested service by the United States Marshal, both of which the court granted. About six weeks later, on September 13, 2016 Plaintiff filed a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.” (Dkt. # 6.). The court has reviewed the Motion and determined that the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) are not met in this case. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish that “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result . . . before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Additionally, the court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. # 7) in a separate order and anticipates that Plaintiff’s counsel may wish to amend the pleadings or to otherwise clarify the issues presented to the court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order” (Dkt. # 6) is DENIED. s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 12, 2016 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, October 12, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5522 S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\16-12823.GARRISON.Deny.TRO.wpd 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?