McKay v. Indian Health Service et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland denying 5 Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory and Injuntive Relief. (JM) Distributed to counsel on 1/31/2006 (ra).

Download PDF
McKay v. Indian Health Service et al Doc. 8 Case 4:06-cv-00003-DLH-CSM Document 8 Filed 01/30/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Mary L. McKay, Plaintiff, v. Indian Health Service, and Todd Bercier, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Case No. 4:06-cv-003 On January 24, 2006, the plaintiff, Mary McKay, filed a pleading entitled "Complaint, Motion for TRO and Declaratory Relief." On January 25, 2006, this Court entered an order denying the Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order. See Docket No. 4. On January 26, 2006, the Plaintiff again filed a "Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" with an accompanying brief. The Plaintiff reiterated her argument for injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order.1 Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order against the Defendants to prevent a five-day suspension beginning on January 30, 2006. The Government filed a response in opposition to the motion on January 27, 2006. See Docket No. 7. The Court again finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All of the factors outlined in Dataphase Systems, Inc., v. C.L. Sys. Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc), weigh in favor of denying injunctive relief at this early stage of the case. Most significant, the Plaintiff has failed to show a threat of irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits. The Government's brief sheds additional light on the Unlike before, the Office of the United States Attorney received a summons and a copy of the motion and complaint. 1 1 Case 4:06-cv-00003-DLH-CSM Document 8 Filed 01/30/2006 Page 2 of 2 facts of this case and supports this Court's previous denial of a temporary restraining order. There is no new evidence that would warrant alteration of that previous finding. The "Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" is DENIED. (Docket No. 5). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of January, 2006. ________________________________________ Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge United States District Court 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?