Dennis Williams El and Empress Dagmar Williams v. James Floyd Ammons, Jr., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al.

E.D. North Carolina

Dennis Williams El and Empress Dagmar Williams v. James Floyd Ammons, Jr., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedOctober 23, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00659

StatusUnknown

This text of Dennis Williams El and Empress Dagmar Williams v. James Floyd Ammons, Jr., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al. (Dennis Williams El and Empress Dagmar Williams v. James Floyd Ammons, Jr., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennis Williams El and Empress Dagmar Williams v. James Floyd Ammons, Jr., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al., (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00659-M DENNIS WILLIAMS EL and EMPRESS DAGMAR WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, ORDER Vv. JAMES FLOYD AMMONS, JR., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ pro se Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [DE 5]. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of a state criminal judgment entered on November 13, 2023, against Empress Dagmar Williams. /d. at 1. For the following reasons, the motion is denied. In order to receive injunctive relief without “notice to the adverse party,” Plaintiffs must (1) set forth “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” that “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant;” (2) “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required;” and (3) “give[] security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) & (c). A party who complies with these requirements must then demonstrate that (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief”; (3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “that an injunction is in the public interest.” See Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Jacobs v. Holmes, No. 5:15-CT-3031-FL, 2015 WL 3891395, at *2 n.1 (E.D.N.C. June 14, 2015) (noting that a temporary restraining order is governed by the same general standards as preliminary injunctions) (citing Hoechst Diafoil v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411, 422 (4th Cir. 1999)). “[E]ach of these four factors must be satisfied to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.” Henderson ex rel. NLRB v. Bluefield Hosp. Co., LLC, 902 F.3d 432, 439 (4th Cir. 2018). “[A] district court is entitled to deny preliminary injunctive relief on the failure of any single Winter factor, without fully evaluating the remaining factors.” Vitkus v. Blinken, 79 F.4th 352, 361 (4th Cir. 2023). Plaintiffs’ argument is difficult to follow. Instead of making an argument in the pending motion, they direct the court’s attention to their complaint and its twenty-five attachments. To the best of the court’s understanding, Plaintiffs challenge a criminal judgment that was entered against Mrs. Williams in Cumberland County Superior Court on November 13, 2023. DE 1 at 5; DE 1-8. At that time, Mr. Williams-El was residing in Japan. DE 1 at 4. When he returned, he and Mrs. Williams attempted to file numerous notices, declarations, and affidavits in state court. See DE 1- 1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-7. The thrust of their argument was that the state court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a criminal prosecution against Mrs. Williams without the presence of her husband, Mr. Williams-El. See generally id. The state court declined to accept the filings because judgment had already been entered. DE 1-8. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of and reliance on that judgment. DE 5 at 1. Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits. They bring claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but they make no effort whatsoever to develop an argument as to how the state court judgment violates those

provisions or as to why a federal lawsuit is the appropriate vehicle with which to attack it. Moreover, they identify no legal authority that prevents a state court from pursuing criminal charges against a woman without the presence of her husband, whether or not that husband has invoked the principle of “sovereign headship.” See DE 1-1. While pro se documents are to be liberally construed, courts are not required to “conjure up questions never squarely presented to them” or to “construct full blown claims from sentence fragments.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs develop no substantive argument, and this court will not make one for them. For these reasons, Plaintiffs fail to meet their high burden in justifying an ex parte temporary restraining order. Accordingly, their motion [DE 5] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 22 d day of October, 2025. C Whas RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00659-M DENNIS WILLIAMS EL and EMPRESS DAGMAR WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, ORDER Vv. JAMES FLOYD AMMONS, JR., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ pro se Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [DE 5]. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of a state criminal judgment entered on November 13, 2023, against Empress Dagmar Williams. /d. at 1. For the following reasons, the motion is denied. In order to receive injunctive relief without “notice to the adverse party,” Plaintiffs must (1) set forth “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” that “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant;” (2) “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required;” and (3) “give[] security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) & (c). A party who complies with these requirements must then demonstrate that (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief”; (3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “that an injunction is in the public interest.” See Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Jacobs v. Holmes, No. 5:15-CT-3031-FL, 2015 WL 3891395, at *2 n.1 (E.D.N.C. June 14, 2015) (noting that a temporary restraining order is governed by the same general standards as preliminary injunctions) (citing Hoechst Diafoil v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411, 422 (4th Cir. 1999)). “[E]ach of these four factors must be satisfied to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.” Henderson ex rel. NLRB v. Bluefield Hosp. Co., LLC, 902 F.3d 432, 439 (4th Cir. 2018). “[A] district court is entitled to deny preliminary injunctive relief on the failure of any single Winter factor, without fully evaluating the remaining factors.” Vitkus v. Blinken, 79 F.4th 352, 361 (4th Cir. 2023). Plaintiffs’ argument is difficult to follow. Instead of making an argument in the pending motion, they direct the court’s attention to their complaint and its twenty-five attachments. To the best of the court’s understanding, Plaintiffs challenge a criminal judgment that was entered against Mrs. Williams in Cumberland County Superior Court on November 13, 2023. DE 1 at 5; DE 1-8. At that time, Mr. Williams-El was residing in Japan. DE 1 at 4. When he returned, he and Mrs. Williams attempted to file numerous notices, declarations, and affidavits in state court. See DE 1- 1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-7. The thrust of their argument was that the state court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a criminal prosecution against Mrs. Williams without the presence of her husband, Mr. Williams-El. See generally id. The state court declined to accept the filings because judgment had already been entered. DE 1-8. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of and reliance on that judgment. DE 5 at 1. Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits. They bring claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but they make no effort whatsoever to develop an argument as to how the state court judgment violates those

provisions or as to why a federal lawsuit is the appropriate vehicle with which to attack it. Moreover, they identify no legal authority that prevents a state court from pursuing criminal charges against a woman without the presence of her husband, whether or not that husband has invoked the principle of “sovereign headship.” See DE 1-1. While pro se documents are to be liberally construed, courts are not required to “conjure up questions never squarely presented to them” or to “construct full blown claims from sentence fragments.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs develop no substantive argument, and this court will not make one for them. For these reasons, Plaintiffs fail to meet their high burden in justifying an ex parte temporary restraining order. Accordingly, their motion [DE 5] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 22 d day of October, 2025. C Whas RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dennis Williams El and Empress Dagmar Williams v. James Floyd Ammons, Jr., in his Official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-williams-el-and-empress-dagmar-williams-v-james-floyd-ammons-jr-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack