Hubbard v. Fair

N.D. Mississippi

Hubbard v. Fair

DecidedFebruary 9, 2021

Docket4:21-cv-00002

StatusUnknown

This text of Hubbard v. Fair (Hubbard v. Fair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hubbard v. Fair, (N.D. Miss. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION PATRICK L. HUBBARD PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-CV-00002-GHD-JMV SHERIFF ROLANDO FAIR, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. #11. In the instant motion, Plaintiff complains generally of retaliation and harassment, and □□ □ further argues that the state prosecution against him has been unfairly handled. Jd. at 1. By way of relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to stop Defendants from violating his civil rights and order that _ he be released from custody. /d. at 4. A party seeking injunctive relief must prove four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any harm that the injunction will cause the non-movant; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Women’s Med. Ctr. Of Nw. Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419 n. 15 (Sth Cir. 2001); DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1996). An injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is “not to be granted routinely, but only when the movant, by a clear showing, carries [the] burden of persuasion.” Black Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 65 (Sth Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); see also Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976) (“injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible irreparable injury”).

Upon due consideration, the Court finds that a denial of injunctive relief will not cause Plaintiff irreparable injury. Rather, the Court finds that the ordinary judicial process is sufficient to remedy any injuries Plaintiff has suffered or might suffer as a result of Defendants’ alleged actions. Moreover, the Court notes that the Spears hearing in the matter has not yet been held and, consequently, Plaintiff cannot show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion [11] for a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the Gh, of Februaryj 2021. J 4 N . 9 ancSen UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION PATRICK L. HUBBARD PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-CV-00002-GHD-JMV SHERIFF ROLANDO FAIR, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. #11. In the instant motion, Plaintiff complains generally of retaliation and harassment, and □□ □ further argues that the state prosecution against him has been unfairly handled. Jd. at 1. By way of relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to stop Defendants from violating his civil rights and order that _ he be released from custody. /d. at 4. A party seeking injunctive relief must prove four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any harm that the injunction will cause the non-movant; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Women’s Med. Ctr. Of Nw. Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419 n. 15 (Sth Cir. 2001); DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1996). An injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is “not to be granted routinely, but only when the movant, by a clear showing, carries [the] burden of persuasion.” Black Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 65 (Sth Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); see also Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976) (“injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible irreparable injury”).

Upon due consideration, the Court finds that a denial of injunctive relief will not cause Plaintiff irreparable injury. Rather, the Court finds that the ordinary judicial process is sufficient to remedy any injuries Plaintiff has suffered or might suffer as a result of Defendants’ alleged actions. Moreover, the Court notes that the Spears hearing in the matter has not yet been held and, consequently, Plaintiff cannot show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion [11] for a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the Gh, of Februaryj 2021. J 4 N . 9 ancSen UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Veronica Lewis, Individually Etc., Naomi Barry Pottinger, Individually, Etc., Vincent Lewis, Daisy Llewellyn, and Margaret Clark, Individually, Etc. v. S. S. Baune, in the Matter of Skibs A/s Baumare and Torvald Klaveness, as Owner Andmanaging Owner of the S/s Baune, Petitioning for Exoneration From or Limitationof Liability v. Phyllis Hoyt, Claimants-Appellees

534 F.2d 1115 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Dsc Communications Corporation v. Dgi Technologies, Inc.

81 F.3d 597 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)

Black Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Dallas

905 F.2d 63 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hubbard v. Fair, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-fair-msnd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack