Headman v. Federal Bureau of Investigations

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: September 23, 2024
• Docket: 6:24-cv-00033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00033 Alan Headman, Plaintiff, V. Federal Bureau of Investigations et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Alan Headman filed this action claiming that he has been denied a right to jury trial in a state court matter and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigations to conduct an investigation of that supposed denial. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to a standing order. Plaintiff moved for emergency preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 2) and moved for a speedy hearing (Doc. 7). Later, plaintiff again moved for an emergency hearing on his request for injunctive relief (Doc. 18). On July 24, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recom- mending that plaintiff’s motions for emergency preliminary in- junctive relief and motion for speedy hearing be denied. Doc. 28. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 29. The court reviews ob- jected-to portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommen- dation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In his objections, plaintiff does not address any specific find- ings or conclusions in the report. Plaintiff does not respond to the report’s finding that he has not proven any of the four prerequi- sites for establishing that a preliminary injunction is appropriate. Instead, plaintiff asserts that the court is avoiding resolution of his claims and preventing him from proceeding to trial. The prerequisites for a temporary restraining order and a pre- liminary injunction are: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer

irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause for the nonmovant; and (4) that the injunc- tion will not disserve the public interest. Affiliated Prof’?! Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282, 285 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). “The denial of a preliminary injunction will be upheld where the mo- vant has failed sufficiently to establish any one of the four criteria.” Black Fire Fighters Assn v. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Here, plaintiff has not established any of the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules plain- tiff’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommen- dation. The court denies plaintiff’s motion for emergency prelim- inary injunctive relief (Doc. 2), motion for speedy hearing (Doc. 7), and motion for an emergency hearing on preliminary injunc- tive relief (Doc. 18).

So ordered by the court on September 23, 2024. Conbake, _faeboka BARKER United States District Judge

-2-