Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BRANDON v. LONG

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania


November 29, 2005.

LAWRENCE BRANDON, Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE GERARD LONG, CONNIE CREANY, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: KIM GIBSON, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The pro se Plaintiff has brought a motion for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) in order to prevent Defendants from extending the Plaintiff's state parole for an additional two year period. (Document No. 6). For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

STANDARD

  In order to succeed under Rule 65(b), it must be clear from "specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant." Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). Additionally, the standard for granting a temporary restraining order is the same standard that is applied for a preliminary injunction. Bieros v. Nicola, 857 F.Supp. 445, 446 (E.D.Pa. 1994). Accordingly, a proponent must demonstrate the following: "1) a likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the probability of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted, 3) that granting injunctive relief will not result in even greater harm to the other party and 4) that granting relief will be in the public interest." Id. (citing Frank's GMC Truck Center, Inc., v. G.M.C., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988)). In the case sub judice, the Plaintiff requests this Court "to grant Temporary Restraining order . . ." (Document No. 6). Plaintiff also cites Com. ex rel. Powell v. Rosenberry, 435 Pa.Super. 337, 645 A.2d 1328 (Pa.Super 1994) in order to articulate the necessity of granting the requested restraining order. However, the Court observes that the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently prove that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief offered by Rule 65(b).

  The Plaintiff's motion consists of two paragraphs outlining the statement of his claim, and two paragraphs which cite to Rosenberry, supra. However, the Plaintiff fails to satisfy any of the requirements under the temporary restraining order standard outlined above. Specifically, there is no indication in Plaintiff's motion that there is any probability of irreparable harm or that immediate action is required, nor has he demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Furthermore, the Court determines that the Plaintiff's requested relief shall be resolved at the time of trial in the case sub judice. ORDER

  AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2005, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is denied.

20051129

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.