Griffith v. PA Secretary of Labor and Industry et al

Filing 8

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that Griffith's motions 3 & 7 for a temporary restraining order & preliminary injunction are DENIED. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/13/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STANFORD GRIFFITH,
Plaintiff
v.
OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-76
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2017, upon consideration of the
motions (Docs. 3, 7) for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, filed by plaintiff Stanford Griffith
(“Griffith”), wherein Griffith, who is blind, asserts that defendants have notified him
that he will no longer be permitted to operate a vending stand located in the
Keystone Building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania effective on January 13, 2017, and
that defendants have awarded the vending stand to a “sighted company” in
violation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. § 107(a), and requests that the
court enjoin defendants from removing Griffith from his vending stand location to
avoid irreparable financial harm, (Doc. 5 at 5), but the court observing that a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are extraordinary
remedies and should issue only in limited circumstances, AT&T v. Winback &
Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994), and that in
determining whether to issue such injunctive relief, the court must consider: (1)

whether Griffith has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether
Griffith will suffer “irreparable harm” if injunctive relief is denied; (3) whether
defendants will suffer greater harm than that alleged by Griffith if injunctive relief
is granted; and (4) whether the public interest favors the requested relief, Bimbo
Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Miller v.
Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 147 (3d Cir. 2010)), and that the “„requisite feared injury or
harm must be irreparable—not merely serious or substantial,‟ and it „must be of a
peculiar nature, so that compensation in money cannot atone for it,‟” ECRI v.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Glasco v. Hills, 558 F.2d
179, 181 (3d Cir. 1977)), and it appearing that Griffith‟s alleged irreparable injury is
wholly financial, (Doc. 5 at 5), and thus fully compensable by an award of monetary
damages, it is hereby ORDERED that Griffith‟s motions (Docs. 3, 7) for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction are DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania