Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Harried
ORDER denying 325 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 325 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 8/15/2011 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-160(DCB)(JMR)
WILLIE R. HARRIED, WARREN R. TURNER,
WILLIAM S. GUY and THOMAS W. BROCK
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary and permanent injunction (docket entry 325).
carefully considered the motion and response, the memoranda and the
applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court
finds as follows:
The plaintiff’s motion, brought pursuant to the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), seeks an injunction against Willie Harried,
Harried’s wife Joyce Harried, Harried’s counsel Wayne Dowdy, and
Dowdy’s law firm Dowdy & Cockerham, ordering them to dismiss a
lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad Company, styled Harried
v. Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, et al., No. 251-11-54 CIV,
in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi. Inasmuch as the
state court action was removed to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, on
February 18, 2011, the plaintiff’s motion seeking dismissal of the
state court action is moot.
On July 12, 2011, U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee dismissed
defendants Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, and Daniel
J. Mulholland from the Jackson Division suit.
Harried v. Forman
Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, et al., No. 3:11-CV-102, docket entry
On July 25, 2011, the sole remaining defendant, Illinois
Central, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment, based on, inter alia, collateral
estoppel and res judicata.
attempting to relitigate the same or related issues precluded by
the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel in another
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873,
879 (5th Cir. 1998).
However, “[t]he powers conferred on a federal
court under the All Writs Act must be exercised with caution and
restraint.” Peters v. Brants Grocery, 990 F.Supp. 1337, 1342 (M.D.
Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 424
“extraordinary powers” that are “firmly circumscribed”).
fact that litigation involving the same issues is pending in
jurisdiction to warrant an injunction under the All Writs Act.
Klay v. United Healthgroup, 376 F.3d 1092, 1103 (11th Cir. 2004).
Injunctions under the All Writs Act may only issue if adequate
remedies at law are unavailable.
Alabama, 424 F.3d at 1132.
“Generally, if a party will have an opportunity to raise its claims
in the concurrent federal proceeding ... the concurrent proceeding
is deemed to provide an adequate remedy at law.”
issues of collateral estoppel and res judicata are pending before
Judge Lee, the Court finds that adequate remedies at law are
available to the plaintiff.
Further, based on considerations of
comity and the orderly administration of justice, the Court finds
that it should defer to the judgment of its sister court.
injunction sought in one federal proceeding would interfere with
another federal proceeding, considerations of comity require more
than the usual measure of restraint, and such injunctions should be
granted only in the most unusual cases.”
Bergh v. State of
Washington, 535 F.2d 505, 507 (9th Cir. 1976).
motion shall therefore be denied.
preliminary and permanent injunction (docket entry 325) is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of August, 2011.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?