Warfield v. Wines et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Kelly Warfield’s motion for a temporary restraining order in his pro se civil rights action against South Dakota and Florida corrections officials and other defendants. The court found that Warfield did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)’s notice-certification requirement and sought mandatory relief that would not preserve the status quo. The court also ordered Warfield to show cause within 30 days why his complaint should remain under seal.

Holdings

1. A temporary restraining order without notice may not issue when the movant fails to certify in writing the efforts made to provide notice and why notice should not be required.
2. Mandatory preliminary relief that affirmatively changes the status quo and substantially grants the relief sought on the merits is subject to a particularly demanding standard and should be granted sparingly.
3. Preliminary injunctive relief in a prison case must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm requiring relief, and use the least intrusive means necessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Warfield satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)'s requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order.
2. Whether the requested relief was proper preliminary relief when it would affirmatively alter the status quo and substantially provide the relief sought in the complaint.
3. Whether the requested injunction complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirements that prison-related preliminary relief be narrowly drawn and minimally intrusive.
4. Whether the court should deny relief because Warfield had not addressed mootness of his official-capacity claims against South Dakota officials or personal jurisdiction over Florida officials.

Disposition

other