United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
V. S. GRANADE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (Doc. 15).
For the reasons set forth herein below, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing the required
elements to obtain a temporary restraining order and,
therefore, the motion (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
filed this action against Mobile County Public School System
and the State of Alabama on January 9, 2018, seeking damages
for the Defendants' alleged negligent failure to protect
him from harassment/bullying he suffered at the hands of
other students during his tenure in the Mobile County Public
School System. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff was subsequently ordered
to amend his Complaint to meet the general rules of pleading.
(Doc. 3). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 18,
2018, (Doc. 4) describing a number of harassing/bullying
experiences he endured while a student in the Mobile County
School System and identified several statutes under which he
brings this cause of action including, 42 U.S.C 2000a, 20
U.S.C. 1703, and 42 U.S.C. 2000c-8. (Doc. 4).
February 25, 2018, Plaintiff additionally filed the subject
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 15) wherein he
request this Court enter an Order restraining Defendant,
State of Alabama, from incarcerating Plaintiff for the
duration of the trial in the instant action for failure of
Plaintiff to pay five traffic citations. (Doc. 15). As
grounds, Plaintiff states that “[t]he Defendant having
the ability to incarcerate Plaintiff, for these traffic
violations, could serve an injustice.” (Id.)
Attached to Plaintiff's motion is a letter from the
District Attorney's Recovery Unit stating that a warrant
has been issued for Plaintiff's arrest for his failure to
appear in court for arraignment or otherwise pay the
citations in full. (Doc. 15-1).
Court previously noted the applicable standard for
preliminary injunctive relief in Hammock ex rel. Hammock
v. Key, 93 F.Supp.2d 1222 (S.D. Ala. 2000):
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the
following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable injury;
(3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the
nonmovant; and (4) that the injunction would not disserve the
public interest. Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1295
(11th Cir.1999); McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson,
147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir.1998). The Court should be
mindful that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant has
clearly satisfied the burden of persuasion as to the four
requisites. McDonald's, 147 F.3d at 1306;
Northeastern Fl. Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen.
Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d
1283, 1285 (11th Cir.1990).
Id. at 1226-27. The same standard applies to a
request for a temporary restraining order as to a request for
a preliminary injunction. Morgan Stanley DW Inc., v.
Frisby, 163 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1374 (N.D.Ga. 2001) (citing
Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995)).
motion is silent as to all four factors that Plaintiff must
establish in order to succeed on his motion for TRO.
Nevertheless, considering liberally the facts pled in pro
se Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the information
provided in the Motion for TRO, this Court concludes that
Plaintiff has not met even the first factor, a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits. First, it is unclear
what connection, if any, Plaintiff's request for a TRO
relating to his unpaid traffic tickets has to his lawsuit
relating to being bullied/harassed in the Mobile County
Public School System, such that he could ostensibly establish
a likelihood of success on the merits. Nevertheless, assuming
a viable connection could be made, Plaintiff makes no
argument that his citations are invalid or that his failure
to either pay the fines charged or appear in court were
justified. As a result, Plaintiff has not established that he
will likely prevail on the merits. While Plaintiff's
failure to establish any one factor is enough to defeat his
motion for TRO, Plaintiff also fails to establish any of the
three remaining factors required. Specifically,
Plaintiff's position that his incarceration “could
be an injustice” falls far short of showing irreparable
injury. Likewise, Plaintiff's own injury -assuming one
existed - would not outweigh the injury to the State, that
is, its inability to properly collect the fines validly owed
to it by traffic offenders and lastly, Plaintiff's
request that he be exempt from a financial obligation or
other penalty to the State of Alabama for his own failure to
pay fines due to the State by him would not serve public
the failure to show any of the four factors is fatal to
Plaintiff's motion for TRO, Plaintiff's motion is due
to be denied.
reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for Temporary