United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
November 29, 2005.
LAWRENCE BRANDON, Plaintiff,
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.
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.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.