The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MICHAEL JOHN FORSYTHE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:26-cv-1570-JES-KRH
JUDGE JAMES F. STEWART,
CYNTHIA B. HALL, ANITA
GORFAN, JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's four
separate Emergency Motions for Preliminary Injunction filed on May
11, 2026, along with the Complaint (Doc. #1). (Docs. #3-6.) The
first motion seeks to require Judge Porter of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit Court to reassign all eight of his state court
cases to eight separate judges “who have no prior connection to
any party, counsel, or institution in any of the eight pending
cases.” (Doc. #3, p. 2) (“No. 1”). Plaintiff has eight cases
that are consolidated into six civil cases pending before defendant
Judge Stewart and two of the cases are pending before Judge Brown
in family court. The second motion seeks to enjoin defendant
Judge Stewart, pursuant to Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984),
from presiding over or exercising judicial authority over the state
court cases pending litigation in federal court. (Doc. #4) (“No.
2”). The third motion seeks to enjoin attorney Cynthia B. Hall
from appearing in any of the eight proceedings because she is named
as a co-conspirator and because she is the wife of Judge Hall of
the Twelfth Judicial Circuit and chaired a circuit disciplinary
body with Judge Stewart without disclosing these facts. (Doc. #5)
(“No. 3”). The fourth motion seeks an injunction “immediately
freezing” all proceedings in the state court and directing the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit to “immediately retransfer” a case from
the family division back to the civil division where plaintiff can
obtain a trial by jury. (Doc. #6) (“No. 4”).
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to
stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized
by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction,
or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
“On its face the present Act is an absolute prohibition [] against
enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls
within one of three specifically defined exceptions.” Atl. Coast
Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970).
“‘In assessing the propriety of an injunction entered to stop a
state court proceeding, the sole relevant inquiry is whether the
injunction qualifies for one of the exceptions to the Anti–
Injunction Act.’” Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v.
City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669, 675 (11th Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted). The exceptions are (1) when “necessary in aid of [the
Court’s] jurisdiction” such as when there is an in rem proceeding
over the res; (2) to protect an earlier federal court injunction;
and (3) “to ‘protect or effectuate its judgments’” and avoid
relitigation. Burr & Forman v. Blair, 470 F.3d 1019, 1028–30
(11th Cir. 2006). It is not clear any of these exceptions apply
such that this Court would have the authority and jurisdiction to
impose an injunction on the state court.
Setting aside for the moment the propriety of issuing an
injunction or injunctions, the Court finds that the request for a
preliminary injunction is procedurally deficient. “The court may
issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse
party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). See also M.D. Fla. R. 6.02(b) (“The
movant must notify each affected party as soon as practical unless
the movant establishes by clear and convincing evidence an
extraordinary circumstance not requiring notice.”). Plaintiff
provides no legal basis upon which to bypass this requirement.
Further, “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction … only if
the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers
proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found
to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(c).
Plaintiff has not yet executed service of process on
defendants, nor proffered an adequate amount of security. The
motions will be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. ## 3-
6) are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 14th day
of May 2026.
4 —
AAA) Z~ DH
JGHH E. STEELE
SHYIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Plaintiff