1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ALAN HEADMAN

vs.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATIONS, ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-cv-33-JCB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF

2), Motion for Speedy Hearing (ECF 7), and Motion for Hearing on Motion for Emergency 

Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF 18). Having considered the pleadings, the motion for speedy

hearing and motion for hearing are DENIED. The Court also recommends that the motion for 

preliminary injunction be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Alan Headman, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled lawsuit on January 26, 

2024. The case is referred in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The original pleading, filed the 

same date as Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,stated that Plaintiff is suing the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and United States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff stated

that he filed an online request for an investigation on the FBI’s website. The investigation request 

concerned a lawsuit Plaintiff states that he filed in Upshur County, Texas, to appeal a final order 

from the Texas Workforce Commission. Plaintiff alleged that the county judge assigned to his 

case refused to give him a jury trial and required him to provide security in the amount of $50,000 

Case 6:24-cv-00033-JCB-KNM Document 28 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

220
2

for the case to proceed. Plaintiff requested declaratory relief affirming his right to a jury trial and 

injunctive relief requiring the FBI to respond and perform a “deep dive review” of his allegations.

The original pleading did not allege facts sufficient to state a claim. The Court entered an 

Order identifying the deficiencies in the original complaint and affording Plaintiff an opportunity 

to address those deficiencies in an amended pleading (ECF 9). Plaintiff filed his amended 

complaint on March 21, 2024 (ECF 11).

The amended complaint re-asserts Plaintiff’s previous allegations and continues to identify

only two named defendants—FBI and United States. Plaintiff states that he is not seeking to 

overturn the state court action. Instead, he “seeks injunctive relief ordering the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation[] to conduct the requested ‘deep dive’ investigation” into the alleged denial of his 

constitutional rights.”1

 Plaintiff submits that he is entitled to an investigation and that the FBI is 

obligated to investigate his allegations.

The Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Report concluded that Bivens action claims 

against the FBI and United States—the only named defendants in Plaintiff’s original and amended 

pleading—are not actionable. The Report additionally determined that Plaintiff has not stated 

actionable claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 or state law. In response, Plaintiff filed 

written objections. Among other things, Plaintiff asserted that he wants to amend the complaint

again to add individual defendants. As a result, the Court entered an Order (ECF 26) withdrawing 

the Report and affording Plaintiff one more opportunity to amend the pleadings to cure the 

identified deficiencies. To date, Plaintiff has not filed his amended pleading.

1 Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ECF 11, at *2.

Case 6:24-cv-00033-JCB-KNM Document 28 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

221
3

In his motion seeking a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff asserts the same allegations that 

are asserted in his original complaint. Plaintiff seeks an immediate investigation by the FBI and a 

declaration that his right to a trial by jury was violated by the state court judge.

APPLICABLE LAW

The prerequisites for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are: (1) a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer 

irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant 

outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause for the nonmovant; and (4) that the injunction

will not disserve the public interest. Affiliated Prof’l Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 

F.3d 282, 285 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). Since

a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is such an extraordinary, and perhaps 

drastic remedy, one is not granted unless the movant clearly carries the onerous burden of 

persuasion as to all of the elements. United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (5th

Cir. 1983). In other words, the movant has a cumulative burden to prove each of the four 

enumerated elements. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985); Clark v. 

Prichard, 812 F.2d at 993. A preliminary injunction “may only be awarded upon a clear showing 

that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24, 

129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed2d 249 (2008). The decision of whether to grant or deny a temporary 

restraining order or a preliminary injunction is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. 

Mississippi Power & Light Co., 760 F.2d at 621.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s motion does not identify, much less establish, the prerequisites for a preliminary 

injunction. “The denial of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order will be upheld 

Case 6:24-cv-00033-JCB-KNM Document 28 Filed 07/24/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

222
4

where the movant has failed to sufficiently establish any one of the four criteria.” Black Fire 

Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, Tex., 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990). 

As explained above, the Court repeatedly addressed deficiencies in Plaintiff’s pleadings. 

To date, he has not put forth a pleading that states a viable claim for relief. As a result, he has not 

established a likelihood of success on the merits. Similarly, he has not shown irreparable harm. 

In his motion, Plaintiff includes a conclusory statement that “[d]ue to the nature of the Plaintiff’s 

land being threatened,” irreparable harm will occur if immediate action is not taken.2 To establish 

irreparable injury, a movant must show “that if the district court denied the grant of a preliminary 

injunction, irreparable harm would result.” Janvey v. Alguire, 628 F.3d 164, 175 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Injuries are irreparable only when they “cannot be undone through monetary remedies.” Paulsson 

Geophysical Servs., Inc. v. Sigmar, 529 F.3d 303, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 

Unsupported conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate an entitlement to the 

extraordinary relief provided by a TRO or a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Hunt v. Bankers 

Trust Co., 646 F.Supp. 59, 66 (N.D.Tex. Aug. 27, 1986).

Plaintiff’s motion wholly fails to address the third and fourth elements, which require a 

showing that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that an injunction might cause and that

an injunction will not disserve the public interest. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to prove each 

of the four prerequisites as required to establish that a preliminary injunction is appropriate. The 

motion for injunctive relief should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary 

Injunctive Relief (ECF 2) be DENIED. It is further

2 Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief, ECF 2, at *4.

Case 6:24-cv-00033-JCB-KNM Document 28 Filed 07/24/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

223
5

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Speedy Hearing (ECF 7), and Motion for Hearing

on Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF 18) are DENIED.

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and 

file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). Written objections shall not exceed five pages. Local Rule CV-72(b).

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and 

recommendations contained in this Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the district 

judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, 

from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions 

accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., 79 F.3d 1415, 

1430 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of July, 2024.

Case 6:24-cv-00033-JCB-KNM Document 28 Filed 07/24/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

224