The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRANDON SIBLEY, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-0024
VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
SHELLY D. DICK, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Howard Brown’s (“Brown”) Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. See Record Document 28. Previously, this Court denied Brown’s first Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, holding that he “failed to satisfy his burden to show a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable hard, or substantial injury.” Record
Document 27 at 2.
Here, Brown attempts to clarify his arguments in favor of a preliminary injunction.
See Record Document 28 at 1. He submits there has been continual violation of unequal
treatment, unequal access, and forced ideological association under the guise of public
health occurring in the Middle District Court in Baton Rouge. See id. at 2. He contends
there is no other adequate remedy at law. See id. at 8.
The instant motion is 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). This Court
has reviewed Brown’s motion, memorandum in support, and attached exhibits and again
concludes — like Magistrate Judge Whitehurst — that he has failed to satisfy his burden to
show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the
threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the defendants.
Thus, Brown’s Motion for Emergency Injunction (Record Document 28) is DENIED.
Additionally, this Court has inherent authority to structure sanctions as are
necessary or warranted to control its docket and maintain the orderly administration of
justice. See Whitehead v. White & Case, LLP, 2012 WL 1795151, *4 (W.D.La.2012).
Brown is cautioned against making future frivolous or duplicative filings, which consume
the resources of the court and delay other legitimate court matters. If such filings are
made, the Court will consider the imposition of sanctions as a deterrent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 13th day of April, 2023.