Vaughn v. Flannery et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying #7 motion for injunction. The clerk's office is ordered to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff's address of record. Signed January 17, 2023 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (Clark, Christopher) Modified on 1/18/2023 to reflect a copy of this order was mailed to Plaintiff. (Furtak, Rebecca).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CURTIS DWAYNE VAUGHN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
SEAN M. FLANNERY, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:22-CV-03301-MDH

ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s ex-parte Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Doc.
7). The exact nature of Plaintiff’s request is unclear. It appears, however, Plaintiff generally
complains of violations of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, stemming from
limits placed on the number of sheets of paper students may print on public-access computers on
the campus of Missouri State University. (Doc. 7 at 6-7). It appears Plaintiff complains of
discrimination based on an inability to increase the number of pages he may print at the university’s
public-access computers. Id. Plaintiff’s claims about how discrimination occurred and how the
alleged discrimination amounts to a Constitutional violation, remain unclear.
Analyzing a request for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, the Court
weighs: 1) probability movant will succeed on the merits; 2) threat of irreparable harm to the
movant absent injunction; 3) balance between threatened harm to the movant and harm the
injunction would inflict on other interested parties; and 4) public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v.
C L Syst., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc). “No single factor is dispositive;” rather,

1
Case 6:22-cv-03301-MDH Document 10 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2

the court must consider all factors to, “determine whether on balance they weigh towards granting
the injunction.” Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Lenox Labs., Inc., 815 F.2d 500, 503 (8th Cir.
1987).
This Court remains unconvinced Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The lack of
clarity in Plaintiff’s motion and complaint fail to indicate likely success. Plaintiff has failed to
show this Court how a print limitation implicates any Constitutional protections. Further, it is
unclear how inability to print a limitless number of pages on a university’s public-access computer
suggests irreparable harm. “In order to demonstrate irreparable harm, a party must show that the
harm is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable
relief.” Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, 895 (8th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

For foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s ex-parte Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is
DENIED. Plaintiff may renew a request for a preliminary injunction once counsel has entered for
Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2023

/s/ Douglas Harpool______
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
United States District Judge

2
Case 6:22-cv-03301-MDH Document 10 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2