Igwe v. Michigan Department of Health & Human Services

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 18, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-10075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Augustine Osita Igwe, Plaintiff, Case No. 22-10075 v. Michigan Department of Health & Judith E. Levy Human Services, Elizabeth Hertel, United States District Judge Oakland County Friend of the Court, and Suzanne Hollyer, Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Augustine Osita Igwe’s ex parte emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 3). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order that Defendants “retract the erroneous certification of a child support arrearage in excess of $2,500.00 and notify both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of State, that [his] passport is not subject to restriction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 652(k)(1).” (id., PageID.22.) In compliance with the Court’s order (ECF No. 4), Plaintiff

submitted a declaration addressing why notice should not be required (ECF No. 5) and evidence of his efforts to provide notice to Defendants

(ECF No. 5-1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 allows courts to issue an ex parte temporary restraining order only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a

verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). “An ex

parte TRO is only appropriate where the applicant would face irreparable harm so immediate that it would be improper to wait until after a preliminary injunction hearing to enjoin the non-movant's conduct.”

Erard v. Johnson, 905 F. Supp. 2d 782, 791 (E.D. Mich. 2012); Hartman v. Acton, No. 2:20-CV-1952, 2020 WL 1932896, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2020) (denying temporary restraining order where plaintiffs did not show

the harm of waiting for a preliminary injunction hearing); see also Breathe v. City of Detroit, 484 F. Supp. 3d 511, 515 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (ex parte TRO is only appropriate where specific facts clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition).

In this case, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his constitutional “right to travel.” See, e.g., Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 175–76 (1978)

(discussing case law recognizing the constitutional right to international travel). “When constitutional rights are threatened or impaired, irreparable injury is presumed.” Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Inst.

v. Johnson, 209 F. Supp. 3d 935, 954 (E.D. Mich. 2016) (quoting Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012)). However, Plaintiff does not address what additional losses he will

suffer if the Court provides Defendants the opportunity to respond. Plaintiff states that he has been “deprived of the right to visit family members, (including a family member who has been diagnosed with

cancer), attend to any business, accompany, and transport my child to Canada to pursue a musical career, or otherwise have the freedom to travel outside of the United States border.” (ECF No. 5, PageID.119.)

Plaintiff does not explain how he will be further injured by waiting for a preliminary injunction hearing. Accordingly, the motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order is DENIED. The Court will set a briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s motion

for a preliminary injunction after all Defendants are served and counsel have filed their appearances.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 18, 2022 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 18, 2022. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager