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 are the plaintiff's Request Temp.
Restraining Order, filed July 24, 2019 (doc. 7), and
Request to be Heard Ex Parte, filed August 6, 2019
(doc. 16). Based on the relevant filings and
applicable law, the motions should be
12, 2019, Corey Steele (Plaintiff) sued numerous defendants
on grounds that they violated his First Amendment rights
during state court proceedings. (doc. 3 at
2-4.) On June 26, 2019, the state court entered
a temporary restraining order (TRO) that essentially barred
Plaintiff from harassing or threatening the officers,
employees, agents and counsel of defendants Unicon Group, LLC
and CY Addison Hospitality Partners, LLC, and from posting
communications from counsel and video of the defendants'
construction projects online. (Id. at 93-97.) After
a hearing on July 10, 2019, it entered a temporary
injunction. (Id. at 98-102.) Plaintiff claims that
the injunction causes immediate, irreparable harm to his
reputation because it declares him to be an extortionist with
mental illness and an established pattern of harassment and
violent threats towards litigants as well as a threat to the
general public. (Id. at 4.) He seeks a TRO lifting
the injunction and directing the state court to remove the
TRO and injunction from the official records, an order for
ethics and disciplinary committee review of the attorneys and
presiding state judge, an order that he be allowed to record
judicial hearings, a coffee mug from each defendant, and
$1.00 in punitive damages. (Id.)
he paid the filing fee in this case on July 25, 2019,
Plaintiff was advised by order dated July 26, 2019, that he
was responsible for serving each defendant. (See
doc. 6.) The docket does not reflect that any defendant has
been served, and none has appeared.
24, 2019, Plaintiff moved for a TRO but did not identify the
specific relief he sought. (See doc. 7.) It appears
that he seeks relief from an order to show cause why he
should not be held in contempt for violating the injunction.
(Id. at 3-13.) The proposed order he submitted with
his motion for TRO orders the state court to lift the
injunction, remove the TRO and injunction from its official
records, recuse the judge who issued the injunction, refrain
from setting any additional hearings in that case until this
federal case is concluded, and allow him to record judicial
hearings. (See doc. 7-1 at 2.) On August 6, 2019, he
filed a request to have his TRO heard ex parte.
(See doc. 16.)
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, Plaintiff has not addressed any of the standards or
elements of his claims in an attempt to show a likelihood of
success on the merits. Nor has he addressed the third and
fourth elements. His brief and conclusory statements that he
faces immediate and irreparable harm, which go to the second