Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-00049/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-00049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE COOPERATIVE DISTRICT )

OF HOUSTON COUNTY-COUNTRY )

CROSSING PROJECT, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:10cv49-MHT

) 

JOHN TYSON, etc., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Based on the representations made on the record on

February 1, 2010, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Houston

Economic Development Association’s motion for a temporary

restraining order (doc. no. 9) is denied.

(1) As to plaintiff Houston Economic Development

Association’s “procedural” due process claim, it appears

that at this time both the association and defendant John

Tyson have adequate remedies to vindicate their rights

and concerns in an orderly and reasoned manner and

without the “drama” that appears to have so far attended

Case 1:10-cv-00049-MHT-TFM Document 17 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 3
2

this matter. See McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th

Cir. 1994) (en banc). The association can file a statecourt civil action for review of the legality of the

machines at issue, and Tyson can file a state-court civil

action and obtain the immediate seizure of the machines

by way of injunctive relief, if the state courts agree

that his contentions are so strong as to entitle him to

immediate relief. The court hopes that the parties will

pursue such orderly processes or something comparable to

them. 

(2) As to the association’s Fourth Amendment claim,

because the association bears the burden of proof and

because the court cannot say on the current record

whether a warrantless search would be impermissible for

lack of probable cause that the machines at issue are

illegal under the criteria set forth in Surles v. City of

Ashville, ___ So.2d ___ (No. 1080826) (Ala. Jan. 29,

2010), and Barber v. Cornerstone Community Outreach,

Inc., ___ So.2d ___ (No. 1080805) (Ala. Nov. 13, 2009),

Case 1:10-cv-00049-MHT-TFM Document 17 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 3
immediate relief is not warranted from this federal

court. In making this statement, the court should not

be understood to hold that it is appropriate for this

court, as a federal court, to make a determination of the

machines’ legality, which is, of course, an essentially

state-law issue.

DONE, this the 1st day of February, 2010.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00049-MHT-TFM Document 17 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 3