Opinion

Burchfield

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Dec 9, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 37.4%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

LISA SHARON BURCHFIELD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00847-MTS

)

CITY OF BERKELEY POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Lisa Sharon Burchfield, a self-represented litigant, moves for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction. Doc. [7]. Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65, such relief is an extraordinary remedy, appropriate only upon a clear

showing of irreparable harm. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d

312, 318–19 (8th Cir. 2009). Having reviewed the Motion and considered the proper

standard, the Court finds no basis for immediate injunctive relief. See Dataphase Sys., Inc.

v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (listing factors to consider).

Even construing the Motion liberally, Burchfield fails to demonstrate a likelihood

of success on the merits or an immediate threat of irreparable harm. See id. Her motion

consists of broad and conclusory allegations of police harassment, unlawful ticketing in

2023, and an alleged assault by a Berkeley police officer in August 2025. Doc. [7] at 1–3.

These allegations concern past events and do not establish any immediate, non-speculative

threat of future irreparable injury. See H&R Block, Inc. v. Block, Inc., 58 F.4th 939, 951

(8th Cir. 2023).

Furthermore, Burchfield’s requested relief—including prohibiting any officer from

approaching or contacting her and imposing a 300-yard exclusion zone around her home,

vehicle, and workplace—is sweeping, unsupported by factual detail, and beyond the scope

of emergency relief available under Rule 65. Additionally, to the extent Burchfield seeks

to enjoin an upcoming municipal proceeding or obtain injunctive relief against a judicial

officer acting in a judicial capacity, such relief is unavailable as a matter of law. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (limiting injunctive relief against judicial officers); see also Night Clubs,

Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 479-81 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding federal courts

may not interfere with ongoing state or municipal proceedings absent bad faith,

harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances (applying Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37 (1971))).

Because Burchfield has not shown circumstances warranting emergency or

preliminary relief, the Court will deny her Motion. The Court will address Burchfield’s

Complaint and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in the ordinary course.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Burchfield’s Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order and Preliminary Injunction, Doc. [7], is DENIED.

Dated this 9th day of December 2025. |)

fA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.