Jeffrey M. Tarrant v. John Doe #1, Child Support Investigator; John Doe #2, Supervisory Attorney; John Doe #3, Regional Child Support Director; and Does 4-10, Unknown Agents, Contractors, or Employees

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: 6:26-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

JEFFREY M TARRANT, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § No. 6:26-CV-00060-LS § JOHN DOE #1, CHILD SUPPORT § INVESTIGATOR; JOHN DOE #2, § SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY; JOHN § DOE #3, REGIONAL CHILD § SUPPORT DIRECTOR; AND DOES 4- § 10, UNKNOW AGENTS, § CONTRACTORS, OR EMPLOYEES, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Plaintiff sues multiple unknown defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 and seeks a restraining order or preliminary injunction.2 For the following reasons, his motion is denied. The elements required to grant a motion for injunctive relief are: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. 3

The district court has discretion whether to grant or deny injunctive relief.4 Regarding the requested temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction,5 the defendants’ identities are unknown. Further, an ex parte restraining order may only be issued with

1 ECF No. 3. 2 ECF No. 10. 3 Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). 4 Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984). 5 ECF No. 10. “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 before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Plaintiff articulates no facts showing immediate and irreparable injury and no facts bearing out that there is a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits. He merely alleges that Defendants have violated his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights without sufficient factual support.’ For these reasons, the Court denies the motion. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 10] is denied. SO ORDERED. SIGNED and ENTERED on February 27, 2026. Zo LEON SCHYDLOWER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 7ECF No. 10 at 2-3, 6, 10.