UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

M. CARL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-12716

US BANK LOAN SERVICING and ORLANS

AND ASSOCIATES,

Defendants.

/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

“EX-PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER”

Pending before the court is pro se Plaintiff M. Carl Jackson’s “Ex-parte Motion for

an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order Pursu[a]nt to FRCP 65,” filed on October

15, 2009. Plaintiff filed his pro se complaint on July 9, 2009, which contains three

causes of action: (1) violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (2) intentional

infliction of emotional distress; and (3) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s

guarantee of due process by Michigan state foreclosure proceedings. In the complaint,

Plaintiff requested a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to enjoin foreclosure

and eviction proceedings. The court denied the TRO on August 6, 2009. Defendant US

Bank Loan Servicing (“US Bank”) answered on August 7, 2009, and Defendant Orlans

and Associates answered on September 9, 2009. On September 9, 2009, the court

held a scheduling conference attended by Plaintiff and Defendant US Bank. On

September 25, 2009, the court issued a scheduling order which remains in place. 

 Plaintiff alleges that he will be evicted from his home on October 16, 2009, and

requests, in an ex parte motion, that the court enjoin the state court’s order of eviction. 

2:09-cv-12716-RHC-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 79
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-12716.JACKSON.Deny.Injunction.bsc.2.wpd 2

The court will deny Plaintiff’s TRO.

First, both Defendants have appeared before the court, and entertaining an ex

parte motion would be inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). 

Second, and relatedly, Plaintiff is required under Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule

7.1(a) and by the court’s scheduling order of September 25, 2009, to seek concurrence

before filing any motion. Nothing on the record indicates that he has done so, and his

motion is inappropriate for that reason as well. For example, Plaintiff has not indicated

whether any attempts to give notice have been made or why notice should not be

required. Third, Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying exhibits do not establish that the

plaintiff or plaintiffs in the to-be-enjoined state court proceedings are the same as the

Defendants in this case. Fourth, the court remains unpersuaded that an injunction –an

equitable form of relief– is appropriate at all in this case where Plaintiff has pleaded

claims that justify only legal remedies. (See 8/6/2009 Order 4.) Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Ex-parte Motion for an Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order Pursu[a]nt to FRCP 65” is DENIED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 16, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 16, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-12716-RHC-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 80