The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. CV-01-065
SAB-YOR~ 3 |io/a001
COURTNEY J. GAVIN,
Plaintiff
v. ORDER
KENNETH PAUL, Town of Acton
Code Enforcement Officer,
Defendant
Following hearing, Mr. Gavin’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is
Denied.
Mr. Gavin “acting on behalf of the Municipality of Acton” seeks a restraining
order preventing town officials from issuing building or occupancy permits for a
proposed building project. At this time the project is before the Planning Board
awaiting action on a request for Conditional Use Permits.
Before a Temporary Restraining Order may issue, the moving party must
establish the four criteria set out in Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441
A.2d 691 (Me. 1982). Among these is the requirement that the moving party
demonstrate a likelihood of success on thé merits of the underlying claims. On this
point, at least, Mr. Gavin falls short.
It is not at all clear that Mr. Gavin himself can bring an action on behalf of the
Town. In order to have legal standing to bring an action a person must have
suffered some particularized harm himself. This particularized harm must be
directly focused on that persons legal interests themselves as distinguished from
some generalized harm that a townsman might experience as a result of alleged
maladministration on the part of local officials. Further, the issues raised in the
complaint are not yet ripe for adjudication. The permits complained about have yet
to be issued. It would be premature at this point for the Superior Court to intervene
1
in the administrative procedures of the Town.
The clerk may incorporate this order in the docket by reference.
Dated: March 16, 2001
LT: PRO SE /
Courtney J. Gavin G. Arthur Brennan
1939 Milton Mills Rd justice, Superior Court
Acton Me 04001
EFS: Durward Parkinson, Esq.
BERGEN & PARKINSON
62 Portland Rd
Kennebunk Me 04043
INTERESTED PARTY:
PATRICK HANNON:
Lawrence Walden, Esq.
PO Box 7320
Portland Me 04112-7320
1 Having failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, it is unnecessary to
analyze the remaining Ingraham criteria. However, this should not be construed as suggesting they
have been met.