TORRES

v.

ZINGALE

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 23) FILED: October 20, 2022 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff Angel L. Torres, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against numerous Defendants, several of whom appear to be state employees, officials, and/or agencies, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteen Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1. The allegations of the complaint are in narrative form and are difficult to follow, but it appears that Plaintiff is challenging a state child support judgment against him and the attempted enforcement of that judgment over the last several years.

Doc. No. 1-1, at 1-2. To date, counsel for three of the Defendants have filed notices of appearance, and one motion to dismiss remains pending. Doc. Nos. 6, 9-10, 12. On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Request for Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.” Doc. No. 23. In the motion, Plaintiff discusses his child support judgment, the attempts by Defendants to collect on that judgment, and requests “an injunction of financial relief of garnishment.” Id., at 1-2.1 Given the nature of the

Upon review, the motion is due to be denied without prejudice for the following reasons. First, pursuant to Local Rule 6.01, a motion for temporary restraining order must include: (1) “Temporary Restraining Order” in the title; (2) a precise and verified description of the conduct and the persons subject to restraint;

(3) a precise and verified explanation of the amount and form of the required security; (4) a supporting legal memorandum; and (5) a proposed order. See Local Rule 6.01(a). Additionally, the required legal memorandum must establish (a) the likelihood that the movant ultimately will prevail on the merits of the claim; (b) the irreparable nature of the threatened injury and the reason that notice is impractical; (c) the harm that might result absent a restraining order; and (d) the nature and extent of any public interest affected. See Local Rule 6.01(b). While Plaintiff’s motion does include “Temporary Restraining Order” in the title, the motion otherwise fails to satisfy these requirements. Doc. No. 23.

Department of Revenue Child Support Program, and a letter from the Florida Lottery. Doc. No. 25. Second, the motion fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Rule 65(b) permits a court to issue a temporary injunction only if “specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition” and that the movant certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiff’s motion does not attach an affidavit or reference a verified complaint, nor does the motion contain written certification of what efforts were made to provide notice and/or why notice should not be required. Doc. No. 23. Third, to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a movant must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) an irreparable injury in the absence of the requested injunction; (3) a threatened injury that exceeds any injury to the non-moving party caused by the injunction; and (4) that public policy favors such an order. Dimare Ruskin, Inc. v. Del Campo Fresh, Inc.,

No. 8:10-cv-1332-SDM-AEP, 2010 WL 2465158, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2010) (citing Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F. 3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003)); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F. 3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005);

see also M.D. Fla. L.R. 6.01, 6.02 (requiring a party requesting a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to submit a brief or memorandum addressing these factors). Plaintiff’s motion does not adequately address these factors.² For these reasons, the motion (Doc. No. 23) is both procedurally and substantively deficient, and it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See, e.g., Benson v. Hernando Cty. Sch. Dist. Bd., No. 8:21-cv-2060-CEH-AAS, 2021 WL 4050952, at *1–2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2021) (denying plaintiff’s motion, which was construed as a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, for failing to abide by Local Rule 6.01 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and for being substantively deficient); Slayton v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corrs, No. 8:21-cv-873-KKM-AAS, 2021 WL 2156223, at *3–4 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2021) (denying without prejudice plaintiff’s “motion for protection,” which was construed as a “temporary restraining order,” for failure to establish the elements of a claim for temporary restraining order, and for failure to comply with Local Rule 6.01 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65); David Boggs, LLC v. Soltis, No. 6:18-cv-687-Orl-37GJK, 2018

WL 3860176, at *1–2 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2018) (denying without prejudice motion for

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 24, 2022.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties