The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROBERT CRAFT,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:21-cv-732-SPC-MRM
CHARLOTTE COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This is an employment discrimination case. Proceeding pro se, Robert
Craft (a former employee of the Charlotte County Fire and Emergency Medical
Services Department) moves for injunctive relief to “restrain Defendant from
continued retaliation of illegal deprivation of property under false pretenses
without just cause or due process.” (Doc. 60). Plaintiff asks the Court to do
four things:
1. Cease and desist the continuous retaliatory actions;
2. Reconstitute the Petitioner with his Rightful and Publicly
declared and claimed property right of Commission;
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The
Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed
hyperlink does not affect this Order.
3. Bring current All Petitioners deprived Public Fund Treasury
Awards in accordance with the Ratified Collective
Bargaining Agreement(s) (most recent CBA provided to
Petitioner) from the date of July 8, 2020 to current date as if
the Petitioner had never been inappropriately forced onto
FMLA without request per DOL recommendation and
terminated; and
4. Place Petitioner on Administrative Leave with Pay pending
the outcome of the current and ANY subsequent associated
litigation or until such time as the Defendant and ALL
Defendant’s Agents (Elected, Appointed, Commissioned, and
Contracted) in their official capacity have judgments
rendered or settlement agreement(s) have been executed.
(Doc. 60 at 39-40). Best the Court can tell, there is no emergency and Plaintiff
wants a preliminary injunction, but to be safe, the Court will address a
temporary restraining order as well.
A preliminary injunction is a “powerful exercise of judicial authority in
advance of trial” and functions “to preserve the status quo until the merits of
the controversy can be fully and fairly adjudicated.” Ne. Fla. Chapter of Ass’n
of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1295 (11th
Cir. 1990). To justify a preliminary injunction the movant must show: “(1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be
suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant
outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing
party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000). Preliminary
injunctions are “drastic” and “extraordinary” remedies, not to be issued unless
the movant has “clearly established” the burden of persuasion on each element.
Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205,
1210 (11th Cir. 2013). They are the exception, not the rule. Id.
Besides the usual requirements for injunctive relief, a district court may
issue an ex parte temporary restraining order
only if (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 be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). These requirements acknowledge “that informal notice
and a hastily arranged hearing are to be preferred to no notice or hearing at
all.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers
Local No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 432 n.7 (1974). The Supreme Court
has further recognized “a place in our jurisprudence for ex parte issuance,
without notice, of temporary restraining orders of short duration” but not
“where no showing is made that it is impossible to serve or to notify the
opposing parties and to give them an opportunity to participate.” Carroll v.
President & Comm’rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 180 (1968).
The Court’s Local Rules also address TROs and preliminary injunctions.
See M.D. Fla. Rs. 6.01, 6.02. These rules largely echo the requirements set
forth above. Plaintiff cannot profess ignorance of the Local Rules as the
Magistrate Judge has told Plaintiff he must fully comply with the Court’s Local
Rules and that failure to do so may cause the Court summarily denying future
motions without considering the merits. (Doc. 59).
The motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, nor
with Local Rules 6.01 or 6.02. The motion is not verified, a security bond isn’t
addressed, no proposed order is provided, and Plaintiff explains none of the
four preliminary injunction elements. At bottom, Plaintiff has not “clearly
established” that he is entitled to such a drastic remedy as injunctive relief.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 60) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this June 10, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record