LANE v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Filing 30

OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 4/6/17. (cm, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

COREY LANE,

Civ. Action No. 16-8948
Plaintiff,

V.

STATE Of NEW JERSEY,
Defendant.

OPINION

John Michael Vazguezg U.S.D.J.
I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Corey Lane’s motion seeking a
preliminary injunction to “enforce [his] unsupervised visits and [his] unsupervised physical
custody of [his] [four] children.”

D.E. 18 at 3.

Defendant State of New Jersey filed an

opposition brief to Plaintiffs motion. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.’ The Court considered
the written submissions of the parties and considered the motion without oral argument pursuant
to federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons that
follow, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.
II.

BACKGROUND

‘The Court had set a briefing schedule requiring that if Plaintiff chose to file a reply brief, he
must do so on or before April 4, 2017. D.E. 19. As of the date of this Opinion, Plaintiff has not
filed a reply brief.

Plaintiff filed this motion for a preliminary injunction seeking unsupervised visits and
physical custody of his four children. D.E. 18 at 3. According to a state court order, it appears
that Plaintiffs children live with their mother and that Plaintiff “is restrained from all
unsupervised visits with the minor children.” D.E. 18-3 at 7. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that
the state court unlawfully deprived him of his parental rights.
causes of action under 42 U.S.C.
III.

Plaintiffs Complaint asserts

§ 1985, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only if “(1)
the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the
plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4)
granting the injunction is in the public interest.” NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc.,
176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999). In order for the Court to grant a preliminary injunction, the
plaintiff is required to establish all four elements. Id.
Here, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence or argument to establish the four elements.
The only evidence submitted by Plaintiff is his own declaration where he claims that the state
court wrongfully conducted a “best interests” analysis in revoking his parental rights and that the
State of New Jersey is engaging in a “malicious tactic

.

.

.

to keep the bond between [Plaintiff]

and [his] children hostage in order to get a false admission of guilt.

.

.

by forcing [him] to go to

therapy.” D.E. 18-2 at 3. Moreover, Plaintiff did not submit a brief and therefore offers no
argument or legal support whatsoever as to why the preliminary injunction elements are satisfied.
The Court sees no basis to provide emergent relief under these circumstances.
for those reasons, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION

2

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

Dated: April 6, 2017
-

John

3

ichael VazqueUD.J.