Opinion
3:23-CV-00024
04-05-2023
BRANDON SIBLEY ET AL v. SHELLY D. DICK ET AL
S. MAURICE HICKS, JUDGE
ORDER
CAROL B. WHITEHURST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Howard Brown's Motion for Emergency Injunction (Rec. Doc. 18). The basis of the motion appears to be Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service (Rec. Doc. 11); however, Defendants have since been served and have withdrawn the motion. (Rec. Doc. 24). Nonetheless, Plaintiff seeks to “restore unfettered access to the public buildings that contain government agencies....by enjoining the Federal and State Governments from using COVID as an excuse to prevent access to any public building.” (Rec. Doc. 18). To the extent Plaintiff's motion is based upon the purported inability to serve Defendants, the motion is moot.
Otherwise, the Court interprets Plaintiff's motion as a motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, governed by F.R.C.P. Rule 65. The Fifth Circuit set forth the following standard for issuance of an injunction:
Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not
granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant, and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary remedy' and should only be granted if the plaintiffs have clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.Nichols v. Alcatel USA, Inc., 532 F.3d 364, 372 (5th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up).
Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or substantial injury. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction (Rec. Doc. 18) is DENIED.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 5th day of April, 2023.