Jurado et al v. Stone et al

Filing 3

ORDER - DENYING request for issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order. Motion for injunctive relief remains pending and necessitates notice to Defendants. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 1/12/15. (kn)(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
EASTERN DIVISION
ARISTIDES JURADO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:15-cv-74
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

v.
AMY C. STONE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ January 12, 2015
emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and an expedited preliminary injunction.
(ECF No. 2.) In this motion, Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue a temporary restraining order
without notice to Defendants that would enjoin: (1) various defendants from entering or
attempting to enter Plaintiffs’ home unannounced; (2) various defendants from contacting
directly or indirectly individuals who may be called as Plaintiffs’ witnesses in this action or in
the underlying proceeding pending in state juvenile court; and (3) all state court proceedings in
multiple cases, including a state court proceeding scheduled for January 12, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.
The Court can issue a temporary restraining order without notice to Defendants under
limited circumstances: if Plaintiffs have alleged specific facts that “clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to [Plaintiffs] before [Defendants] can be heard
in opposition” or if Plaintiffs’ “attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and
the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Impossibility of notice is
not at issue here. Rather, the pro se Plaintiffs argue that exceptional circumstances exist to
justify a without-notice injunction. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that a conspiracy exists

involving numerous state actors and other individuals who are discriminating against them.
Plaintiffs assert that absent issuance of a without-notice injunction, Defendants will most likely
tamper with evidence or cause unspecified harm to one of the plaintiffs while the January 12,
2015 hearing is being held.
Plaintiffs’ vague and essentially conclusory allegations of wrongdoing present
insufficient facts to support granting a temporary restraining order without notice. Moreover,
despite Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertion to the contrary, their filings raise a probability that
abstention may ultimately be warranted. The Court therefore DENIES the request for issuance
of an ex parte temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief remains
pending and necessitates notice to Defendants. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs
must notify all Defendants or their counsel, if known, of the motion for a temporary restraining
order and an expedited preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 2.) Relying on the contact information
for Defendants and their counsel that Plaintiffs have emailed this Court, the Court will proceed
to schedule an informal conference pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civil Rule 65.1(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2