Quevedo-Andretti v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Filing No. 2 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 3 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case will be for the court to conduct an initial review of his claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ALEJANDRO D. QUEVEDOANDRETTI,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, TYLYNN BAUER,
KRISTINE BOESIMMONS,
STEPHEN O’NEILL, DARYL
STEPHENSON, HOLLI FRYE,
STEPHANIE BRIGHT, KAYLA
HRABANEK, and DAVID
MITCHELL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV31

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (Filing No. 2) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(Filing No. 3). Plaintiff resides at the Norfolk Regional Center. For purposes of
determining his IFP status, the court considers him a non-prisoner. Upon review of
Plaintiff’s motion, the court finds Plaintiff is financially eligible to proceed IFP in this
matter.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is very general. It asks
solely that several of the Defendants be required to remain “150 feet of the Plaintiff
at any and all given times, and from residing on the same housing unit as Plaintiff for
a period of one year minimum.” (Filing No. 3 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff did not
address the factors the district court should consider when determining whether to
grant a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys.,
Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.1981) (“[W]hether a preliminary injunction should

issue involves consideration of (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2)
the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will
inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the
merits; and (4) the public interest.”). Moreover, the court has carefully reviewed
Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds that his allegations do not entitle him to preliminary
injunctive relief. He made no showing at this time that he faces a threat of irreparable
harm or that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Filing No. 2) is granted.

2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 3) is
denied without prejudice to reassertion.
3.
Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case will be for the court to
conduct an initial review of his claims to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review
in its normal course of business.
DATED this 26th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2