Thompson v. Lombardi et al
Filing
279
ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiff's motion for restraining order, Doc. 277 , is denied. Plaintiff's motion for restraining order, Doc. 278 , is denied. Signed on November 30, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Opalach, Tessa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
JOSEPH LEROY THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE A LOMBARDI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:15-cv-04303-NKL
ORDER
Pending before the Court are two motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Joseph Thompson.
Docs. 277, 278. This case closed in July 2019 after the parties reached settlement, including
payment of $20,000 and medical shoes to Thompson and release of all claims against
Defendants. Doc. 245. Per the Court’s Order dated October 29, 2020, Defendants are to effect
settlement by delivering the medical shoes to Thompson and mailing a check to the Clerk of
Court no later than December 14, 2020. Doc. 276. The Clerk is directed to withhold $505 for an
appellate filing fee owed by Thompson, Doc. 270, and deliver the remaining funds to Thompson
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2042. Thompson’s pending motions oppose the Order dated
October 29, 2020, Doc. 276.
Thompson’s first motion, Doc. 277, was mailed to the Eighth Circuit, but because the
Eighth Circuit was the incorrect court to receive and rule the motion, the Clerk of Court for the
Eighth Circuit mailed the motion to this Court to be filed and ruled. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291,
1292 (providing limited appellate jurisdiction for appeal from “final decisions” and interlocutory
appeals in limited situations). In the motion, Thompson asks for a restraining order against the
1
Case 2:15-cv-04303-NKL Document 279 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 3
Court for an alleged failure to allow Thompson an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ motion
for order and notice of compliance, Doc. 271. Defendants’ motion was filed on September 3,
2020 and Thompson had until September 17, 2020 to file suggestions in opposition. Local Rule
7.0(c)2 (providing 14 days to respond). He did not timely respond. When the Court granted
Defendants’ motion on October 29, 2020, Doc. 276, Thompson still had not filed suggestions in
opposition. The Court finds that Thompson had an opportunity to respond but failed to do so.
Moreover, the Order dated October 29, 2020 merely grants Defendants’ notice of compliance
with a settlement that Thompson lawfully agreed to, and when Thompson appealed the Court’s
Order enforcing the settlement, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Doc. 270. Thus, Thompson
provided no substantive basis to challenge the Court’s Order dated October 29, 2020, Doc. 269.
Finally, Thompson has not provided any argument to justify granting his request for a
restraining order which requires, among other things, establishing a threat of irreparable harm.
Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981). Thompson has
not met his burden, and the motion is thus denied. Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 856 (8th
Cir. 1999) (holding that the burden of proving a restraining order should be issued lies entirely
with the movant).
In the second motion, which Thompson correctly mailed to this Court, Thompson again
requests a restraining order and to “freeze” the transfer of $20,000 to the Court. Doc. 278.
However, Thompson’s motion does not provide any facts or law to justify granting a restraining
order because he has not shown that he will be irreparably harmed in the absence of the relief he
seeks. Dataphase Systems, 640 F.2d at 113; Randolph, 170 F.3d at 856. The motion is denied.
Finally, the Clerk of Court is directed to return any future motions to Thompson unfiled,
unless Thompson has first sought and obtained leave of Court to file the motion. Doc. 269.
2
Case 2:15-cv-04303-NKL Document 279 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: November 30, 2020
Jefferson City, Missouri
3
Case 2:15-cv-04303-NKL Document 279 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 3
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?