United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
to U.S. Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is the Plaintiff's 2nd Motion
for Emergency Hearing, filed August 9, 2019 (doc. 13).
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the motion
should be DENIED.
2, 2019, Reshunn Chambers (Plaintiff) filed this action
against various governmental and private defendants alleging
that they have conspired to wrongfully withhold disability
monthly benefit payments to him for the last five years.
(doc. 3 at 4.) He asserts claims for discrimination,
wrongful termination of his social security benefits,
negligence, retaliation, defamation, slander, libel, and
adverse credit reporting. (Id. at 3-4.) After he
paid the filing fee on May 20, 2019, he was reminded by order
dated May 23, 2019, that he was responsible for serving each
defendant. (See doc. 5.) The docket does not reflect
that any defendant has been served, and none has appeared.
8, 2019, Plaintiff sought an emergency ex parte
hearing and an order to the defendants to deliver a check to
him for past due benefits. (See doc. 8.) On July 9,
2019, his motion was liberally construed as seeking a
temporary restraining order (TRO), and it was recommended
that the motion be denied. (See doc. 9.) The
recommendation was accepted, and the motion was denied on
July 31, 2019. (See doc. 10.) The plaintiff again
seeks an emergency hearing, an unspecified temporary
injunction, and an order to the defendants to deliver a check
for past due benefits to him. (See doc. 13.) His
motion, which reflects service on the United States
Attorney's Office only, is liberally construed as again
seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO).
may obtain a TRO without notice to the other side if it
satisfies the necessary requirements, which are:
(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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Here, the motion contains no
certification regarding any efforts to provide notice and the
reasons why it should not be required.
in order to obtain a TRO, a plaintiff “must show
entitlement to a preliminary injunction.” Mktg.
Investors Corp. v. New Millennium Bank, No.
3:11-CV-1696-D, 2011 WL 3157214, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 26,
2011) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (citations omitted). A preliminary
injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be
awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled
to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To obtain a preliminary
injunction, the movant must establish that: (1) he is likely
to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3)
the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an
injunction is in the public interest. Tex. Midstream Gas
Servs., LLC. v. City of Grand Prairie, 608 F.3d 200, 206
(5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The party seeking the
preliminary injunction bears the burden of persuasion on all
four requirements. Bluefield Water Ass'n, Inc. v.
City of Starkville, Miss., 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir.
establish the first element of likelihood of success on the
merits, a “plaintiff must present a prima facie case
but need not show that he is certain to win.”
Janvey v. Alguire, 628 F.3d 164, 175 (5th Cir.
2010). The first element is assessed by looking at standards
provided by substantive law. Id. (citing Roho,
Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356, 358 (5th Cir. 1990)).
Here, the plaintiff has not addressed any of the standards or
elements of each of his claims in an attempt to show a
likelihood of success on the merits. His brief and conclusory
statements in his purported sworn declaration that his
disability benefits were wrongfully terminated and that he
faces immediate and irreparable harm and injuries are not
sufficient to show entitlement to preliminary injunctive
relief. (See doc. 13 at 2-3.) In fact, he seeks to
have the defendants ordered to deliver a check in the amount
of $75, 000.00, which is what he contends he is owed,