Shreves v. Piranian et al
ORDER denying 6 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 9/2/2014. Mailed to Shreves. (TAG, )
Clerl<, U S Oistct C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Distri~.C)fM~~tan~urt
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
RICHARD E. SHREVES,
DR. SCOTT PlRANIAN, TRISTON KOHUT,
LAUREL ANDRECHAK, SPECTRUM
MEDICAL INC., MIKE FERRITER, MIKE
BATISTA MEAGEN BOURNE, C. McGUIRE,
DANIEL TROUPE, DAN CHLADEK,
KRISTY BOESE, BILL MILLER, LIZ
RANTZ, HEIDI ABBOTT, CATHY
REDFERN, and CINDY HINER,
Plaintiff Richard Shreves has filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking an order requiring Defendants to
provide medically appropriate diagnosis (M.R.I. or C.T. scan with contrast),
treatment, and physical therapy to Shreves for his back problems to stop further
damage and restore his back to full function. (Motion, Doc. 5.)
There are several problems with Mr. Shreves' motion. First, he has not
complied with the notice provisions of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney if: (1) it clearly appears from
specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse
party or the party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant's
attorney (plaintiff himself in this case, as he proceeds pro se) certifies in writing
the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting
the claim that notice should not be required. Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b). Mr. Shreves has
not satisfied either requirement.
In addition, as a general rule courts are unable to issue orders against
individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v.
Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969); Zepeda v. United States
Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may
issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject
matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of
persons not before the court."). Here, the Court has not obtained personal
jurisdiction over any defendant since the case is in the prescreening process
mandated by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A and therefore has not yet been served.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) is denied.
2""" day of September 2014.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Ju ge
United States District Court
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?