United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
BARBARA J. RILEY, Plaintiff,
DANIEL D. DONATELLI, et al., Defendants.
MARICIA MORALES HOWARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court on Pro Se Plaintiff's Motion
for Injunctive Relief Against Pro Se Defendant Curtis V.
Trinko, Esquire, His Employees, Agents and Associates (Doc.
77; Motion), filed on March 28, 2017. In the Motion,
Plaintiff Barbara J. Riley, who is proceeding pro
se, requests an “Order of Injunctive Relief”
against Defendant Curtis V. Trinko, an attorney who has also
appeared in this action pro se, because Trinko is
allegedly depriving Riley of her civil rights. See
Motion at 1. Specifically, Riley seeks an injunction
restraining Trinko from “tortious interference of this
civil rights action, ” “harassing Pro Se
Plaintiff Barbara J. Riley during any other and further
proceedings held, ” and committing “fraud on the
Court by setting into motion some ‘unconscionable
schemes' to interfere with the judicial system's
ability to impartially adjudicate the matter.”
Id. at 5. Notably, although replete with
accusations, aspersions, and conclusory allegations of
wrongdoing, the Motion is devoid of any factual detail as to
the actual conduct or threatened conduct at
issue. Moreover, Riley fails to cite to any
relevant legal authority in support of her requested relief.
Thus, for the reasons set forth below, to the extent Riley is
seeking preliminary injunctive relief, the Court
finds that she fails to comply with the procedural or
substantive requirements for such relief and her request is
due to be denied.
4.06, Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida (Local Rule(s)), and Rule 65, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), govern the entry of
preliminary injunctive relief. Local Rule 4.06(b) requires
the party applying for a preliminary injunction to comply
with certain procedural requirements set forth in Local Rule
4.05(b). See Local Rule 4.06(b)(1). Local Rule
4.05(b)(3) requires that the motion describe precisely the
conduct sought to be enjoined, set forth facts on which the
Court can reasonably determine the amount of security to be
posted, be accompanied by a proposed form of the order, and
contain a supporting legal memorandum. As with all motions
filed in this Court, the memorandum must include
“legal authority in support of the request . .
. .” See Local Rule 3.01(a) (emphasis added).
the legal memorandum in support of the motion must address
four specific factors, including the likelihood of success,
the threatened irreparable injury, potential harm to the
opposing parties, and the public interest. See Local
Rule 4.05(b)(4); see also GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S.
Army Corps of Eng'rs, 788 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir.
2015) (“To obtain [preliminary injunctive] relief, the
moving party must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) that [she] will suffer irreparable
injury unless the injunction is issued; (3) that the
threatened injury outweighs possible harm that the injunction
may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction
would not disserve the public interest.”).
Significantly, a preliminary injunction is “an
extraordinary and drastic remedy” that will not be
granted “unless the movant clearly carries [her] burden
of persuasion on each of these prerequisites.” See
GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1322. Because Riley
fails to satisfy the procedural or substantive requirements
for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, the Court
concludes that the Motion is due to be denied. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief Against Pro Se
Defendant Curtis V. Trinko, Esquire, His Employees, Agents
and Associates (Doc. 77) is DENIED.
 Indeed, although difficult to discern,
it appears the instant Motion is premised on Trinko's
“interference” in this lawsuit. Riley is
reminded, however, that Trinko is part of this lawsuit
because she named him as a defendant in the Amended Complaint
Verified and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 5; Amended
Complaint). See Amended Complaint at 1, 3. As such,
the Court questions whether Trinko's actions in defending
himself in this lawsuit, either by filing motions or
responding in opposition to Riley's motions, could
warrant injunctive relief. If Riley continues to seek such
relief, she must cite to legal authority supporting this
request. In doing so, Riley is cautioned that the
requirements of Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Rule(s)) are applicable to pro se litigants as well as
attorneys. See Rule 11(b); Patterson v.
Aiken, 841 F.2d 386, 387 (11th Cir. 1988) ("[P]ro
se filings do not serve as an 'impenetrable shield, for