Summary
The magistrate judge recommends denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and protective order concerning alleged interstate stalking and law-enforcement nonresponse. The recommendation concludes that the requested relief is unrelated to the claims in the third amended complaint and seeks relief against nonparties, beyond the court’s authority.
Holdings
- Preliminary injunctive relief should be denied when the conduct addressed by the motion is not closely related to the conduct alleged in the underlying complaint.
- A court lacks authority to issue a preliminary injunction against persons or entities that are not parties to the action.
Questions Presented
- Whether preliminary injunctive relief may be granted when the conduct addressed by the motion is unrelated in time, place, and substance to the claims in the complaint.
- Whether the court may issue a preliminary injunction against individuals or entities that are not parties to the action.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:05CV39, 2005 WL 1684419, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 29, 2005), adopted, No. 305CV39, 2005 WL 1876159 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2005)(followed)
- Torres Puello v. Guerrero Mendez, No. 5:20cv198, 2020 WL 4004481, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2020), adopted, 2020 WL 4001896 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2020)(followed)
- Bethel v. Town of Loxley, No. 04-0373, 2006 WL 8437738, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 15, 2006)(followed)
- Jackson v. Baisden, No. 21-13004, 2022 WL 610314, at *1 (11th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL 878 v. Abbott Lab., 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…