Rodriguez v. Meta Platforms, Inc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HIRAN RODRIGUEZ CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-197

META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL. SECTION “A” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

The following motion, filed by Plaintiff Hiran Rodriguez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is before the Court on the briefs: Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Injunctive Relief (Rec. Doc. 98). On March 20, 2025, the Court referred the captioned matter to Magistrate Judge Donna Currault for hearing, including an evidentiary hearing if necessary, and a submission of a report and recommendation.1 In the same order, the Court stayed all deadlines in this matter pending the Court’s review of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation.2 Due to the alleged emergent nature of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court provides reasons for denying it in the paragraphs that follow. Plaintiff’s motion seeks emergency relief against Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Meta Platforms, Inc., X Corporation, AT&T Enterprises, LLC, and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office.3 He articulates the bases for the relief he seeks as follows: • Kansas City Southern Railway Company has engaged in a pattern of excessive noise pollution, violating Plaintiff’s right to peace and safety.

• Meta, X Corp., and AT&T Enterprises, LLC have engaged in obstructionist tactics, denying Plaintiff access to crucial records.

• Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office has continued intimidation efforts through excessive sirens, surveillance, and community harassment.

1 See Rec. Doc. 102. 2 Id. 3 See Rec. Doc. 98. (Rec. Doc. 98, at 4). The Court has denied two prior motions for injunctive relief in this matter.4 This motion, just like the motions Plaintiff has previously filed, is based on speculative and conclusory claims of injury. See Daniels Health Sci., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Sci., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 585 (Sth Cir. 2013) (finding that mere speculation or conclusory allegations of an irreparable injury is insufficient). He has also failed to articulate his likelihood of success on the merits. See id. at 582 (“To show a likelihood of success, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case ....”). Accordingly, the Court now denies Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief a third time. Accordingly; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Injunctive Relief (Rec. Doc. 98) is DENIED. March 21, 2025 C2: oP a UNI peter hg eteerd DGE

4 See Rec. Doc. 77, at 8-9.