Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01928-OES.
October 6, 2005
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed pro se a Complaint naming her ex-husband as Defendant. She seeks as relief an "Automatic Stay and Immediate Relief and Injunction of said orders from Southern District of Illinois that seized personal property of mine." (Compl. At 6.) The personal property at issue apparently has been seized by the United States in connection with a judgment against Defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiff is contesting the seizure of her personal property in the Southern District of Illinois.
On October 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Emergency Automatic Stay and Injunction from Removal and/or Seize of Personal Property." On October 6, 2005, she filed an "Emergency Motion for Emergency Temporary Automatic Stay and Injunction from Removal and/or Seize of Personal Property." The Court will construe Plaintiff's motions seeking immediate injunctive relief as motions for either a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. For the reasons stated below, the motions will be denied.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, that she will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues, that the threatened injury to her outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest. See Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980). Similarly, a party seeking a temporary restraining order must demonstrate clearly, with specific factual allegations, that immediate and irreparable injury will result unless a temporary restraining order is issued. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b).
Plaintiff's motions seeking immediate injunctive relief will be denied because Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts that demonstrate she is facing immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiff is contesting the seizure of her personal property in the Southern District of Illinois and her arguments may be raised in that court. It also is not clear why Plaintiff has initiated this action in this Court against her ex-husband when the property she seeks to have returned was seized by the United States. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the "Motion for Emergency Automatic Stay and Injunction from Removal and/or Seize of Personal Property" filed on October 5, 2005, and the "Emergency Motion for Emergency Temporary Automatic Stay and Injunction from Removal and/or Seize of Personal Property" filed on October 6, 2005, are denied.