Frances Hood and Matthew A. Williams v. Mayor Ronelle Searcy, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 7:25-cv-00184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION FRANCES HOOD and MATTHEW A, WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, : CASE NO: ve : 7:25-cv-184-WLS

MAYOR RONELLE SEARCY, etal, Defendants. : ee . ORDER. oe The Court held an evidentiary telephone heating onthe Plaintiffs’ Rule 65 Motion for. □□ Temporaty Restraining Order (Doc. 3) (“ERO Motion”) on December 23,.2025, This Order, □□ memotializes that hearing. The Court heard from Plaintiffs, who proceed pre se, and Counsel for Defendants. The Court swore in Plaintiff Frances Hood. Ms. Hood testified as to evidentiary matters and answered questions from the Court and Counsel for Defendants. Crucially, Ms. Hood testified both that her water has been shut off since November 18, 2025, she received no-pretermination notice before the water shutoff, and she lives with her three-year-old grandson, who lives with her of whom she has full legal custody. After hearing ftom Plaintiffs! and Defendants, the. Court considered whether | abstention in accordance with Younger wv. Harris, 401 US. 37 (1971) was tequited, The □□□□□□ □□ held that there are. pending state proceedings (Case. No, SU-CV-2025-000658), those. state | proceedings involve important state interests, and likely afford an adequate opportunity to

raise the ‘constitutional issues of due “process: ‘Therefore, the Coutt found that Younger □ abstention would normally apply. However, the Court found that an exception to the Younger doctrine applied, If irreparable injury would occur absent Court action, abstention is not required. Jobson v. Florida,

' The Coutt essentially heard from Plaintiff Hood, whose issues were pertinent to the TRO, Plaintiff Williams was present, Defendants were represented by Counsel.

32 F.4th 1092, 1099 (11th Cit. 2022). Ms. Hood has been without water since November 18, 2025. And the pending state proceeding is not until January 8, 2026. “An injury is ‘irreparable’ only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies.” Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815, 821 (1ith Cir. 1987). Money cannot undo the injury caused by being without water for over a month while caring for a young grandson. Ms. Hood’s asserted injury counts as irreparable. Therefore, the Court need not abstain from this action. The Court considered the Rule 65 standard for granting a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court found a substantial likelihood Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits, irreparable injury will occur unless the injunction issues, the threatened injury to Ms. Hood outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing patty, and the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the. public interest. □□ . For these reasons, the TRO. Motion.(Doc. 3).is GRANTED. The TRO. shall remain. in place for fourteen days, or until Tuesday, January 6, 2026 at 3-/0PM, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to- immediately “restore ‘Water “Service to Ms. Hood.’ Counsel for | - Defendant shall communicate to apptoptiate persons the nature of the Order and. the reed for immediate action to comply, All Parties are ORDERED to immediately notice the Court with any updates regarding the pending state court action and whether the TRO should be lifted ot extended.

ORDERED, this23.td day of December 2025, Se

□□ UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT.