WASHINGTON
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMMISSION
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 denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and her request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin Hillsborough County from enforcing a curfew order, alleging it viol…
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 Imminent Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
Hillsborough County Commission, and all persons acting on its behalf, from imposing and enforcing a curfew in Hillsborough County pending the entry of a final judgment in this action. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that the curfew order violates the constitutional rights of Hillsborough County residents and nonresidents, has no rational basis, and its objective could be achieved through less restrictive means. Plaintiff argues that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and that she and other residents and non-residents will suffer irreparable injury if the curfew order is permitted to stand. Although she filed the instant motion, Plaintiff has not yet filed a complaint. Legal Standard A district court is authorized to issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party only in limited emergency circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); M.D. Fla. Local Rule 4.05. A motion seeking a temporary restraining order “must be supported by allegations of specific facts shown in the verified complaint or accompanying affidavits, not only that the moving party is threatened with irreparable injury, but that such injury is so imminent that notice and a hearing on the application for preliminary injunction is impractical if not impossible.” M.D. Fla. Local Rule 4.05(b)(2). Analysis Although the TRO motion is facially insufficient as a matter of procedure, the Court will address the motion substantively in the interest of justice.1 Upon review,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden because she has not sufficiently demonstrated that there is any “imminent” or “immediate” harm about to occur that would require the issuance of a TRO. Plaintiff only generally refers to the violation of “constitutional rights” but does not identify any specific constitutional rights under either the United States Constitution or Florida Constitution that are being violated or would be violated by the imposition and enforcement of the curfew order. Because Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the alleged constitutional violations, the Court is unable to presume the irreparable nature of the harm. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific facts that demonstrate that she would suffer irreparable injury absent the Court’s intervention. The allegations of the TRO motion are vague and conclusory, and the failure to sufficiently plead irreparable harm is notable in light of the exceptions carved out in the curfew order, including going to the grocery store, pharmacy, and traveling to or from another essential activity during curfew hours.
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F. 3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004). Motions to proceed in forma pauperis will only be granted if a movant, due to indigency, can show she is unable “to support and provide necessities” for herself and her dependents while paying for court costs. See Crossley v. Armstrong Homes, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-636-Oc-30PRL, 2014 WL 12617584, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2014). In this case, Plaintiff has not yet filed a complaint and has failed to provide any financial information to support her request to proceed without costs. Consequently, her request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice. Along with a copy of her complaint, Plaintiff may file a separate motion — attaching the required financial information — if she wishes to proceed without costs in this action. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) “Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 1) is hereby DENIED. Although Plaintiff is not entitled to a TRO, she is not precluded from filing a motion for preliminary injunction. (2) Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Along with a copy of her complaint, Plaintiff may file a separate motion — attaching the required financial information — if she wishes to proceed without costs in this action. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 14th day of April 2020.
~ a: (Gr
-TOMBARBER i asssi(‘“—Cs:tsts~™S