Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00637/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00637-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Howard Lee Mitchell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Scottsdale, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-00637-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion/Request for 

Emergency Injunction Secondary to Complaint” (Doc. 4). Plaintiff requests in this 

document that the Court issue a preliminary injunction requiring Defendant and any other 

custodians of his animals to “retain and provide proper care” during the duration of the 

present case. (Doc. 4 at 5). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65 governs the 

issuance of preliminary injunctions, and states that “[t]he court may issue a preliminary 

injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). 

 Plaintiff has filed a proof of service form with the Court that states, under penalty 

of perjury, that he has served a summons on the City of Scottsdale. (Doc. 5). The Court 

notes that Plaintiff’s actions do not qualify as proper service under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure because a party to an action may not serve a summons and complaint. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Nevertheless, the rules for a preliminary injunction require 

only notice, not service. Because the City of Scottsdale must have notice and an 

opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court will 

Case 2:15-cv-00637-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

order Plaintiff to give a copy of this Order to the City of Scottsdale. 

 Plaintiff has not, however, provided notice to the other party sought to be 

enjoined, the Arizona Humane Society. See Parker v. Ryan, 960 F.2d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 

1992) (“When dealing with a preliminary injunction, the ‘adverse party’ means the party 

adversely affected by the injunction, not the opponent in the underlying action.”); see 

also Washington v. Wa. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 

692 n.32 (1979). Therefore, unless Plaintiff also gives notice to the Arizona Humane 

Society and provides them with a copy of this Order, the Arizona Humane Society cannot 

be the subject of an injunction. 

 For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall give the City of Scottsdale a copy of this 

Order. Plaintiff shall file an affidavit describing the details of this service. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of Scottsdale shall, within ten days 

from the date on which it receives a copy of this Order, file a response to Plaintiff’s 

motion for a preliminary injunction. 

 Dated this 14th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00637-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 2