Morris v. Standard & Poor's Credit Rating Services et al

Filing 5

AMENDED ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC re 4 See Amended Order Nunc Pro Tunc for further details. The only amendment consist of footnote number 2, as to plaintiff's failure to comply with the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b)(1)(B). The Clerk will notify a copy of this Amended Order Nunc Pro Tunc by certified mail return receipt requested. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Daniel R. Dominguez on 8/12/2011.(JAM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
DERRICK NORBERT MORRIS,
Plaintiff(s),

Civil No. 11-1778 (DRD)

STANDARD & POOR’S CREDIT RATING
SERVICES, a subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation;
FITCH RATINGS, a subsidiary of Fitch Group Inc.,
and Fimalac, S.A.; and MOODY’S INVESTORS
SERVICES, INC., a subsidiary of Moody’s
Corporation; and CHINA,

ANTITRUST AND CONSPIRACY

Defendant(s).

AMENDED ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC
Pending before the Court are several motions filed by pro se plaintiff Derrick Norbert Morris, to wit:
(a) Application To Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees Or Costs, Docket No. 1; (b) Complaint,
Docket No. 2; and (c) Motion For Temporary Injunction [sic] a Restraining Order, Docket No. 3. For the
reasons set forth below, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the motion for temporary
restraining order is denied.
A review of plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied for lack of sufficient
information.1 Plaintiff’s application shows that Mr. Morris has a business, a profession and is self-employed.
Yet his income is $75 weekly, and he has a mobile phone account with Verizon. No information or
supporting evidence is provided regarding Mr. Morris’ business and personal income.
Plaintiff is suing the three main rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s; Fitch, and Moody’s, as well as
China, for the downgrade of the bonds and other investments of the United States of America. The Court
notes that the plaintiff has failed to serve the defendants with a copy of the instant complaint, as well as the
motion requesting a temporary restraining order without notice.

1

The Court notes that this is not the first time that Mr. Morris has been denied a petition to proceed
in forma pauperis. See In Re Derrick Norbert Morris, 549 U.S. 1203 (2007). See also Morris v. Rinker, 2005 W L
1027485; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33919 (M.D.Florida (April 14, 2005)).

In view of the foregoing, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to comply with service of process, and serve
summons upon the defendants, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summons shall
be served with copies of the complaint and the motion requesting a temporary restraining order.
The request for the issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to the defendants is
denied, as a review of the complaint shows that this is an action for money damages. The allegations of the
complaint as pled, lack sufficient facts to warrant an injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s claims also fail to meet the
requirements that may justify an equitable relief against the defendants without notice. Rule 65(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.”) governs the injunction procedures.
Rule 65(b) provides that:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if: (A) 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 (B) the movant’s attorney
certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it
should not be required. 2
In considering a request for a preliminary injunction, a trial court must weigh several factors: (1) the
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the balance of
the movant's hardship if relief is denied versus the nonmovant's hardship if relief is granted; and, (4) the
effect of the decision on the public interest. See Lamex Foods, Inc. v. Audeliz Lebron Corp., ___ F.3d ___,
2011 WL 2535168 (1st Cir. (Puerto Rico) (June 27, 2011)); Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Medical
News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011); Ross-Simons of Wardwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12,
15 (1st Cir. 1996); Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st Cir. 1991). Likelihood of success
is the touchstone of the preliminary injunction inquiry. See Ross-Simons, 102 F.3d at 16; Weaver v.
Henderson, 984 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1993).

2

In the instant case, plaintiff failed to set forth in writing, the efforts made, if any, to notify the
defendants herein of the filing of this actions, as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P.65(b)(1)(B), particularly of the request for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

2

In the instant case, plaintiff have failed to show that he has any likelihood of success in this action,
and that there is a potential of irreparable harm to plaintiff if the temporary restraining order is not issued.
Furthermore, the facts as pled in the complaint are conclusory in nature, and fail to meet the threshold of the
plausibility standard, that is, the facts pled in the complaint are not context specific - possible v. plausible.
See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 952,
163 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Lastly, plaintiff failed to describe specifically what exactly is his economic loss,
both personally and businesslike, as any economic loss can be repaired monetarily.
The Clerk will notify a copy of this Order to plaintiff by certified mail return receipt requested, and
will also provide a copy of Form No. AO 239.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 12th day of August, 2011.
s/Daniel R. Domínguez
DANIEL R. DOMINGUEZ
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3