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)

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-