Richardson v. U S Federal Bureau of Investigations

W.D. Louisiana

Richardson v. U S Federal Bureau of Investigations

DecidedDecember 17, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-01050

StatusUnknown

This text of Richardson v. U S Federal Bureau of Investigations (Richardson v. U S Federal Bureau of Investigations) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. U S Federal Bureau of Investigations, (W.D. La. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION CLIFFORD JAMES RICHARDSON, SR. CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1050 VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY US FEDERAL BUREAU OF MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES INVESTIGATION, ET AL.

ORDER On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Clifford James Richardson, Sr. (“Richardson”) filed a “Reply” [Doc. No. 55] to Defendant Bayou Pawn Shop’s Answer [Doc. No. 52]. Upon reviewing that filing, the Clerk of Court referred the Reply to the undersigned as a motion for permanent injunction. Richardson does state in his filing that “[t]he relief is a ‘Perspective Injunction’” that “preempts all state laws.” [Doc. No. 55]. It is unclear if Richardson seeks such relief and, if so, whether the relief is in the nature of preliminary or permanent injunction. However, to the extent that Richardson seeks a preliminary injunction, he has failed to make a showing of the required elements. See Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987) (A court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the movant establishes that (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 (to the movant) outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) he granting of a preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest; see also Commerce Park at DFW Freeport v. Mardian Cons. Co., 729 F.2d 334, 341 (5th Cir. 1984) (All four of the requirements must be met

in order to grant the TRO or preliminary injunction). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent that Richardson seeks a preliminary injunction, the motion is DENIED. To the extent that Richardson seeks a permanent injunction, the Court will consider any such request as part of the relief sought. There is no pending motion. Rather, if Richardson prevails on the merits of his claims at a bench trial, the Court will consider whether an injunction is appropriate at that time. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 17" day of December, 2020.

Lagat TERRY A. DOUGHTY Co unrfeD STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION CLIFFORD JAMES RICHARDSON, SR. CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1050 VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY US FEDERAL BUREAU OF MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES INVESTIGATION, ET AL.

ORDER On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Clifford James Richardson, Sr. (“Richardson”) filed a “Reply” [Doc. No. 55] to Defendant Bayou Pawn Shop’s Answer [Doc. No. 52]. Upon reviewing that filing, the Clerk of Court referred the Reply to the undersigned as a motion for permanent injunction. Richardson does state in his filing that “[t]he relief is a ‘Perspective Injunction’” that “preempts all state laws.” [Doc. No. 55]. It is unclear if Richardson seeks such relief and, if so, whether the relief is in the nature of preliminary or permanent injunction. However, to the extent that Richardson seeks a preliminary injunction, he has failed to make a showing of the required elements. See Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987) (A court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the movant establishes that (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 (to the movant) outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) he granting of a preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest; see also Commerce Park at DFW Freeport v. Mardian Cons. Co., 729 F.2d 334, 341 (5th Cir. 1984) (All four of the requirements must be met

in order to grant the TRO or preliminary injunction). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, to the extent that Richardson seeks a preliminary injunction, the motion is DENIED. To the extent that Richardson seeks a permanent injunction, the Court will consider any such request as part of the relief sought. There is no pending motion. Rather, if Richardson prevails on the merits of his claims at a bench trial, the Court will consider whether an injunction is appropriate at that time. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 17" day of December, 2020.

Lagat TERRY A. DOUGHTY Co unrfeD STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richardson v. U S Federal Bureau of Investigations, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-u-s-federal-bureau-of-investigations-lawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack