LINTON v. NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL et al

Filing 7

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 11/25/2024. (dam)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROCMOINE LINTON,

Case No.: 2:24-cv-09702-JKS-CLW

Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION

NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL et al.,

November 25, 2024

Defendants.
SEMPER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Rocmoine Linton’s
Complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on an ex parte basis, against the
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General and Patricia Shaw (“Defendants”). (ECF 1; ECF 3.)
The Court has reviewed the papers and concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated, as required
by Local Civil Rule 65.1, that issuance of emergency relief, without notice to Defendants, is
warranted. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
WHEREAS Plaintiff was detained in relation to an alleged disorderly person’s offense
concerning domestic violence. (ECF 1-1 at 7.) Plaintiff asserts his detention was wrongful. (Id.)
He initiated a civil action in state court based on this alleged wrongful detention. (Id.) The case
was dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff sought to appeal the state court decision, but he alleges that case
manager Patricia Shaw “impeded the appeal by diverting it from its intended path, which should
have involved a review by the relevant judges.” (Id.) Before this Court, Plaintiff now states:
I am presently asking the court to urgently issue a temporary
injunction against the Office of the Attorney General, which would
require the state courts, including the Court of Appeals, as well as

its staff and officials under its jurisdiction, to properly carry out their
duties in compliance with the rules of the court. In a separate note, I
am calling on Case Manager Patricia Shaw to execute her duties
appropriately and to cease any actions that obstruct the appeal
process. There is no other remedy to address this issue.
(ECF 1-1 at 6.) Construing pro se Plaintiff’s papers liberally, 1 it appears that he asserts that the
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General and Patricia Shaw have committed equal protection
and due process violations by failing to ensure that the New Jersey Appellate Division timely
reviewed an appeal of his state court action. (Id. at 3, 5.) It appears Plaintiff is asking this Court to
order the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General to instruct the New Jersey Appellate Division
to review an appeal of his state court case by way of temporary restraining order. (Id.); and
WHEREAS granting a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65 is an “extraordinary remedy” that “should be granted only in limited circumstances.”
Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994)). To determine whether
to grant such a remedy, the Court considers four factors: (1) whether the movant has shown “a
reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation[;]” (2) whether the movant “will be
irreparably injured . . . if relief is not granted[;]” (3) “the possibility of harm to other interested
persons from the grant or denial of the injunction[;]” and (4) whether granting the preliminary
relief will be in “the public interest.” Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017)
(citing Del. River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transp., Inc., 501 F.2d 917, 919-20 (3d
Cir. 1974)). The movant bears the burden of showing its entitlement to an injunction. See Ferring
Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Opticians Ass’n
of Am. v. Indep. Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 1990)); and

As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff is entitled to liberal construction of his Complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
1

2

WHEREAS Local Civil Rule 65.1 states that “no order to show cause to bring on a matter
for hearing will be granted except on a clear and specific showing by affidavit or verified pleading
of good and sufficient reasons why a procedure other than by notice of motion is necessary.” L.
Civ. R. 65.1. Under the rule, an order to show cause may include temporary restraints “only under
the conditions set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides
that a temporary restraining order may be issued without notice to the adverse party only if
“specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition” and “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
reasons why [notice] should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1); and
WHEREAS to the extent Plaintiff asks this Court to review a final state court judgment,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to do so. In re Madera, 586 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463,(2006) (“[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes
lower federal courts ‘from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments’
because such appellate jurisdiction rests solely with the United States Supreme Court.”));
Grossberger v. Superior Court Essex Cnty., No. 22-05484, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172481, at *3
(D.N.J. Sep. 23, 2022); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff has otherwise failed to set forth “specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will
result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1)(A). Even construed liberally, Plaintiff’s Complaint has failed to allege facts that establish
a likelihood of success in the litigation or that he will be irreparably harmed if relief is not granted.

3

See Reilly, 858 F.3d at 176. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is
DENIED. An appropriate order follows.
/s/ Jamel K. Semper
.
HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER
United States District Judge
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.
Parties

4