Chapman v. Wayne County

Chapman · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · December 16, 2024 · No. 2:24-cv-13284

Summary

This federal district court order denies plaintiff Kenneth Chapman's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction regarding an alleged illegal foreclosure and eviction. The court found that Chapman failed to satisfy the prerequisites for ex parte relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), as he did not demonstrate why notice to defendants was impossible or would render further action fruitless. Additionally, the court noted that Chapman had not filed a formal complaint, requested a summons, or paid the required civil case filing fee, meaning no proper civil action had been commenced before the court. Consequently, the motion was denied.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Writing for the Court
Denise Page Hood
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Decision date
December 16, 2024
Docket number
2:24-cv-13284
Procedural posture
Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction based on an alleged improper auction sale and threatened foreclosure and eviction. The court denied the motion.
Standard of review
The court applied the requirements governing issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1).
Precedential value
Unpublished district court order; persuasive authority only.
Parties
Kenneth Chapman v. County of Wayne, Wayne County Treasurer Eric Sabree, City of Detroit, Shirley Hailey, Citywide Realestate Investments LLC
Disposition
denied

Topics

injunctionscivil procedureforeclosureevictionreal estate

Practice areas

civil procedurereal estate lawforeclosureinjunctive relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Chapman established the prerequisites for an ex parte temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), including why notice to the defendants was impossible or would render further prosecution fruitless.
  2. Whether the court could grant injunctive relief when no complaint had been filed, no summons had been requested, and the required filing fee had not been paid.

Holdings

  1. An ex parte temporary restraining order was not warranted because Chapman failed to explain why notice to the defendants was impossible or would render further prosecution of the action fruitless, and he submitted no evidence supporting such a showing.
  2. The court could not review Chapman's claims because no complaint had been filed, no summons had been requested, and the required filing fee had not been paid; therefore, no civil case had been properly commenced.

Key quotations

A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.
Because no Complaint has been filed in this action, there is no case before the Court to review since the initial step to commence a case in federal court has not been met.

Factual background

Kenneth Chapman alleged that his home had been improperly sold at auction to Shirley Hailey and that he was facing an illegal foreclosure and eviction. He sought emergency injunctive relief without having filed a complaint or requested a summons. Chapman paid $52, but the court noted that the applicable civil case filing fee was $405.

Procedural history

Chapman filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on December 10, 2024, but filed neither a complaint nor a request for summons. The court held that he failed to satisfy Rule 65(b)'s requirements for ex parte relief and that, because no complaint had been filed and the filing fee was insufficient, no civil action had been properly commenced.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…