Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied John Lewis Rush’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. The court held that the requested relief was unrelated to the claims in the complaint and that Rush had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or immediate irreparable harm. The court stated that claims concerning the later incident would need to be brought in a separate action.
Holdings
- A plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief based on unrelated incidents and claims that are not tethered to the claims in the complaint.
- Rush was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because he failed to allege facts showing either a likelihood of success on the merits or immediate irreparable harm.
Questions Presented
- Whether Rush was entitled to a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order based on incidents unrelated to the claims pleaded in his complaint.
- Whether Rush demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and immediate irreparable harm sufficient to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (20)
- Alues v. Main, 747 Fed. Appx. 111, 112 n.3 (8d Cir.)(followed)
- Holland v. Rosen, 895 F.3d 272, 285 (8d Cir.)(followed)
- Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876, 879 (8d Cir.)(followed)
- Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 191-92 (3d Cir.)(followed)
- Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir.)(followed)
- Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 484 (8d Cir.)(followed)
- United States v. Stazola, 893 F.2d 34, 37 n.3 (8d Cir.)(followed)
- Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 72 (3d Cir.)(followed)
- ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 228, 226 (8d Cir.)(followed)
- Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 2838, 286 (4th Cir.)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…