Brodzki v. Jacks et al

Filing 17

ORDER that pro se plaintiff Anthony J. Brodzkis fourth motion for temporary restraining order 16 is DENIED. Plaintiff is hereby enjoined from filing further motions for injunctive relief without leave of court in this case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/27/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 ANTHONY BRODZKI, 9 2:12-CV-2060 JCM (RJJ) Plaintiff, 10 11 v. JIMMY JACKS, et al., 12 13 Defendants. 14 ORDER 15 Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Anthony J. Brodzki’s fourth motion for 16 temporary restraining order. (Doc. #16). Plaintiff requests this court to issue a temporary restraining 17 order “to end the harassment by police and civilian population.” (Doc. #16). Plaintiff previously 18 moved for temporary restraining orders on February 10, 2012, (doc. #6), February 22, 2012, (doc. 19 #8), and February 27, 2012 (doc. #11), and the court denied those motions (docs. #7, #9, and #12). 20 According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a court may issue a temporary restraining 21 order when the moving party provides specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, 22 loss, or damage will result before the adverse party’s opposition to a motion for preliminary 23 injunction can be heard. The Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider the following 24 factors in determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction: (1) 25 a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not 26 granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) advancement of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 27 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 2 Plaintiff’s requested relief is too vague to be appropriate for injunctive relief. Further, plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing under the four Winter factors. (See Doc. #16). 3 In the court’s March 3, 2012, order denying plaintiff’s third motion for temporary restraining 4 order, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause “why a pre-filing order enjoining plaintiff from filing 5 further motions for injunctive relief without leave of court should not be entered.” (Doc. #12). 6 Plaintiff never responded to the order to show cause. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that pro se plaintiff Anthony 9 J. Brodzki’s fourth motion for temporary restraining order (doc. #16) be, and the same hereby is, 10 11 12 13 DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is hereby enjoined from filing further motions for injunctive relief without leave of court in this case. DATED April 27, 2012. 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

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?