Premoh v. Cincinnati City of et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 5 Report and Recommendation. The clerk is to correctly docket plaintiff's motion (doc. 2) as a verified motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 6/8/15. (mb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Kofi N. Premoh,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Cincinnati, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
) Case No. 1:15-CV-265
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Kofi N. Premoh’s verified petition for a
temporary injunction (Doc. No. 2), Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied (Doc. No. 5), and Plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 7. For the reasons that follow, the Court
SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court does not
adopt the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court, however, is ORDERED to redocket Plaintiff’s “Verified Petition for a Temporary Injunction” as a “Verified Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction.”
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Kofi N. Premoh filed a complaint asserting claims, inter
alia, for due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Cincinnati and
various city officials concerning the revocation of a building permit and an order to complete
certain repairs or destroy his building within 30 days. Plaintiff also filed a pleading
captioned “Verified Petition for a Temporary Injunction” (Doc. No. 2) in which he moved the

1

Court to order the restoration of his building permit and enjoin the order to destroy his building.
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz construed Plaintiff’s petition for a temporary injunction as
a motion seeking a temporary restraining order under Rule 65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. In her Report and Recommendation, Judge Litkovitz recommended
denying Plaintiff’s motion for failure to satisfy certain prerequisites in the both Rule 65 and
the local rules of civil procedure for obtaining a temporary restraining order. Most notably,
Judge Litkovitz found that Plaintiff failed to certify his efforts to give Defendants notice of
his motion or why notice should not be required and how he would suffer irreparable harm
before Defendants could be heard in opposition to his motion.
In his objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff clarifies that he is not
seeking a temporary restraining order under Rule 65(b)(1). He states rather, that he is
seeking a preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a)(1). See Doc. No. 7, at 1. Plaintiff also
notes that under Rule 4(m), he has 120 days to serve the complaint on the Defendants.
With Plaintiff’s clarification that he is not moving the Court for a temporary restraining
order, the Court sustains his objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court,
therefore, does not adopt the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is ordered
to re-docket Plaintiff’s “Verified Petition for a Temporary Injunction” as a “Verified Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction.”
Finally, the Court notes that a preliminary injunction cannot issue until notice is given
to the Defendants and a hearing is held in which Defendants are given an opportunity to
oppose the motion. County Sec. Agency v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 296 F.3d 477, 48384 (6th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, no further action will be taken on Plaintiff’s motion at least

2

until Defendants are given notice of the complaint and the motion for a preliminary
injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED
s/Sandra S. Beckwith
Sandra S. Beckwith
Senior United States District Judge

Date June 8, 2015

3