Rued

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

SCOTT DARYLL RUED, LEAH

JEAN RUED, JOSEPH DARYLL

RUED, AND W.O.R., A MINOR

CHILD

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 2:26-cv-1060-SPC-NPM

SCOTT S. HARRIS, AN ACTOR

UNDER COLOR OF FEDERAL

LAW IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;

PIPA FISHER, AN ACTOR UNDER

COLOR OF FEDERAL LAW IN

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; ET AL;

Defendants,

/

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Time-Sensitive Temporary Restraining

Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 29) filed by Plaintiffs

against Defendants Scott Harris and Pipa Fisher, employees of the Clerk of

Court for the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs seek a temporary

injunction to be issued by noon today to prevent Defendants from rejecting

Plaintiffs’ Petition for Rehearing by applying Supreme Court Rule 9.1 to reject

the filing. For the many reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

The Court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice to

Defendants only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” are

provided and Plaintiffs certify the effort made “to give notice and the reasons

why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). In addition, Plaintiffs

must include “a precise and verified explanation of the amount and form of the

required security” and a proposed order. M.D. Fla. R. 6.01(a)(4), (6). To obtain

a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must show: (1) a “substantial

likelihood of ultimate success on the merits;” (2) that relief is necessary to

“prevent irreparable injury;” (3) that the “threatened injury outweighs the

harm” to Defendants;” and (4) because it would serve the public interest.

Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

The Court’s analysis begins and ends with the first requirement. “A

substantial likelihood of success on the merits requires a showing of only likely

or probable, rather than certain, success.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo,

357 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1383 (M.D. Fla.), aff'd, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005)

(citations omitted). “Significantly, even if Plaintiffs establish a likelihood of

success on the merits, the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable

injury would, standing alone, make preliminary injunctive relief improper.”

Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (collecting cases).

Plaintiffs state that Defendants prevented them from identifying or

filing on behalf of the minor child and returned their Petition for Rehearing

because it included the minor child. Plaintiffs argue that their constitutional

rights, including the right to redress, are at stake and that judicial immunity

does not bar injunctive relief. “The Supreme Court shall have the power to

prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases

in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate

judges thereof) and courts of appeals.” 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a). “To determine

whether a Rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act, the only question is

whether it ‘really regulates procedure.’” Berk v. Choy, 607 U.S. 187, 199 (2026).

“Rules regulating matters indisputably procedural are . . . constitutional.”

Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1, 5 (1987).

Under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 1, “[t]he Clerk receives documents for

filing with the Court and has authority to reject any submitted filing that does

not comply with these Rules.” Sup. Ct. R. 1.1. Defendants rejected a filing

because “[a]n attorney seeking to file a document in this Court in a

representative capacity must first be admitted to practice before this Court[.]”

Sup. Ct. R. 9.1. Plaintiffs may file the document if they comply with Rule 9.1.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the

merits. Further, actual injury is a prerequisite to an access-to-courts claim,

Johnson v. Brown, No. 22-11812-E, 2022 WL 17176390, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept.

28, 2022), and there is no absolute right to appeal, Wainwright v. Torna, 455

U.S. 586, 587 (1982).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Time Sensitive Temporary Restraining Order and

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 29) is DENIED as to the temporary

restraining order and DENIED without prejudice as to the preliminary

injunction pending Defendants’ response to the Amended Complaint.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on July 27, 2026.

, tite WObLatrat he 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record