Civil Action No. 14-5195 (MAS) (DEA).


United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

AKINTOYE LAOYE, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


MICHAEL A. SHIPP, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Akintoye Laoye's ("Plaintiff") ex parte application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court requiring Defendant United States of America ("Defendant") to refrain from: (1) "detaining [Plaintiff] without any concrete reasons"; or (2) attempting to remove or relocate Plaintiff during the duration of Plaintiff's pending lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). (TRO Appl. ¶ 2.) The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's submission and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1.

"The Supreme Court [has] held that [a] [TRO] should be treated as a preliminary injunction." NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997). Because the grant of injunctive relief is "an extraordinary remedy[,]" a temporary restraining order "should be granted only in limited circumstances." Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). This remedy "should be granted only if `(1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest.'" NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Maldonado v. Houstoun, 157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1998)).

The Third Circuit has further instructed that a party seeking a temporary restraining order must meet all four factors, as a movant's "failure to establish any element in its favor renders [this remedy] inappropriate." Id. A movant has the burden of establishing a "clear showing of immediate irreparable injury." Louis v. Bledsoe, 438 F. App'x 129, 130 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)). "Establishing a risk of irreparable harm is not enough." ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987).

Here, Plaintiff fails to establish that the factors weigh in favor of granting a temporary restraining order. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to show immediate irreparable harm. Plaintiff merely claims that "any attempt at this time by [D]efendant[] to retaliate or attempt to remove [P]laintiff would be a gross injustice" because Plaintiff may be able to successfully argue his FTCA claims. (TRO Appl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff makes no argument as to why the harm is either "immediate" or "irreparable," and only alleges a risk of harm. See ECRI, 809 F.2d at 226. Based upon Plaintiff's submission, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer immediate irreparable injury absent a temporary restraining order.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, and other good cause shown, IT IS on this 24th day of May 2017, ORDERED that Plaintiff's ex parte TRO application (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases