Edwards v. Clark et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 24 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/13/2016. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
PAMELA CLARK, et al.,
No. 4:16-CV-331 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
The motion is denied.
In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to protect him from an
assault by a fellow inmate. In his motion for a temporary restraining order, he claims that
defendants “are starting to retaliate against [him] for filing [his] civil suit.”
“A court issues [an] injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and prevent
irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits. Thus, a party
moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington,
42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). In this case, there is no relationship between the injury
claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint. Consequently, the motion is
Moreover, the assertions in the motion are wholly conclusory and are unsupported by
facts, which if proved, would entitle plaintiff to relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order
[ECF No. 24] is DENIED.
So Ordered this 13th day of June, 2016.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR 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?