HEAGNEY
v.
METZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion for injunctive relief must be denied when there is no operative complaint and the requested relief does not relate to the complaint.
Plaintiff Heagney's complaints were struck as impermissible shotgun pleadings. He then moved for an emergency order to cease and desist sentencing in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Shotgun Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
v. Case No. 8:22-cv-1268-KKM-TGW KATE METZ, Defendant.
ORDER
The Court has struck both of Plaintiff William R. Heagney’s two complaints in this case as impermissible shotgun pleadings. (Doc. 1-1; Doc. 5; Doc. 10; Doc. 11.) Heagney now moves for “an emergency order to cease and dl[e]sist any and all sentencing... pertaining to his criminal felony case” in Florida court. (Doc. 14 at 1.) Heagney alleges that this sentencing is scheduled for July 27, 2022. (Id. at 2.) But there is no operative complaint in this case, and “[a]bsent a properly-filed complaint, a court lacks power to issue preliminary injunctive relief.” Powell v. Rios, 241 F. App’x 500, 505 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007). Heagney’s motion for a cease-and-desist order must therefore be denied because “injunctive relief must relate in some fashion to the relief requested in the complaint.” Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 424 F. 3d 1117, 1134 (11th Cir. 2005); see Hencey v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 21-61702-CIV, 2021 WL 3634630, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17,
2021) (Gayles, J.) (denying a motion for preliminary injunction because the case lacked an operative complaint). Alternatively, even if Heagney had properly filed a complaint, the Court would deny his “emergency” motion based on the misuse of that label. Parties may label their motions “emergencies” only when the party faces immediate risk absent swift adjudication and the issuance of a court order. See Privitera v. Amber Hill Farm, L.L.C., No. 5:12-cv-7-OC- 32TBS, 2012 WL 1900559, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2012) (Smith, M_J.) (noting that there was no emergency because “[n]o one’s health or safety is at stake, nobody is at risk of being deprived of an essential service, and nothing that is irreplaceable or for which compensation would not be available is in jeopardy”). Here, the sentencing Heagney seeks to prevent is not until July 27, 2022. A danger of an event happening in twenty-four days is too remote to constitute an “emergency.” Cf LOCAL RULES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 7.1(d)(1) (explaining that a motion is generally not an “emergency” unless it would “become moot if not ruled on within seven (7) days”). Accordingly, Heagney’s motion for an emergency order is DENIED. (Doc. 14.) ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 3, 2022. fatten fainlall Miisehte Kathryn’ Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heagney v. Metz, 2012 WL 1900559 (M.D. Fla. 2022)…ased on the misuse of that label. Parties may label their motions “emergencies” only when the party faces immediate risk absent swift adjudication and the issuance of a court order. See Privitera v. Amber Hill Farm, L.L.C., No. 5:12-cv-7-OC- 32TBS, 2012 WL 1900559, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2012) (Smith, M_J.) (noting that there was no emergency because “[n]o one’s health or safety is at stake, nobody is at risk of being deprived of an essential service, and nothing that is irreplaceable or for whi…1 / 2
-
Palmer v. State (S.D. Fla. 2025)…led a Verified Petition for Emergency Injunction. DE 1. Plaintiff did not file a Complaint. Without a Complaint, the Court cannot evaluate Plaintiff's Verified Petition for Emergency Injunction. See Hency v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 21- 61702-CIV, 2021 WL 3634630, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2021) (“Absent a properly-filed complaint, a court lacks power to issue preliminary injunctive relief. A complaint is required because injunctive relief must relate in some fashion to the relief requested in the complaint.…
-
ActivEngage, Inc. v. Smith (M.D. Fla. 2019)…xtraordinary remedy.” Id. at 1133. 1 Despite the “emergency” label ActivEngage has affixed to the Appeal Motion, it has not shown an emergency warranting expedited resolution. See, e.g., Privitera v. Amber Hill Farm, L.L.C., No. 5:12-cv-7-Oc-32TBS, 2012 WL 1900559, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2017) (finding the plaintiff’s motion does not allege an emergency where no one’s “health or safety is at stake, nobody is at risk of being deprived of an essential service, and nothing that is irreplaceable or for which co…
Authorities Cited
- State of Ala. v. United States Army Corps OF Eng'rs, 424 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2005)
- Heagney v. Metz, 2012 WL 1900559 (M.D. Fla. 2022)