United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is pro se Plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements'
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 11). For the following
reasons, the Court denies his motion because it does not meet
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
the Court can tell, Clements brings this action because he
wants the Court to declare Florida Statute §
768.28, which addresses sovereign immunity,
unconstitutional under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). He
seeks this declaration to help win his appeal in Florida
court. A few years ago, Clements sued state entities like the
State of Florida Office of the Attorney General, Lee County
Sherriff's Office, and Florida Department of Corrections
for malicious prosecution. See Clements v. State of
Florida, No. 16-CA-4523 (Fla. Cit. Ct.). The Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County largely dismissed his
claims in part because of immunity under Fla. Stat.
§ 768.28. Clements has appealed the dismissal and
is awaiting a decision. Consequently, Clements seeks an
emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction in this case because “[u]nless enjoined by
this Court, Defendants will continue to enforce FL.S. §
768.28, specifically, FL.S. § 768.28(9)(a), putting
Plaintiff's pending State Case (16-CA-004523/2D17-4961
[20th Judicial Circuit of Florida and Florida
2nd District Ct. of Appeals (ACTIVE)] in jeopardy
of being lost because this unconstitutional FL statue [sic]
is still active.” (Doc. 11 at ¶ 4).
governs requests for temporary restraining orders and
preliminary injunctions. A temporary restraining order may be
issued without notice only if “specific facts in an
affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,
” and the moving party “certifies in writing any
efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not
be required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A)-(B); see also
Local Rule 4.05(b)(2) (stating a motion for temporary
restraining order “must be supported by allegations of
specific facts shown in the verified complaint or
accompanying affidavit, not only that the moving party is
threatened with irreparable injury, but that such injury is
so imminent that notice and a hearing on the application for
preliminary injunction is impractical if not
under the most liberal construction of Clements' motion,
he has failed to meet the prerequisites for the exceptional
remedy of a temporary restraining order. There is no
affidavit that provides facts showing that Clements is in
need of protection. Nor has he filed a verified complaint or
given the certification needed under Rule
65(b)(1)(B). He also has not alleged, much less
satisfied, the burden of proving that he has a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, which is a prerequisite
to the grant of a temporary restraining order. McMahon v.
Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep't, 455 Fed.Appx.
874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011); see Parker v. State
Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35
(11th Cir. 2001) (listing the elements for a temporary
restraining order). In addition, Clements has not shown that
he faces a substantial threat of an immediate or irreparable
injury from Defendants. Because both a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits and irreparable injury are also
prerequisites to a preliminary injunction, Clements'
request for a preliminary injunction as an alternative relief
fares no better than his request for a temporary restraining
order. What is more, Clements has also not given any facts
that show the “emergency” nature of his motion.
it is now
Louis Matthew Clements' Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
11) is DENIED.
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other
site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
 Clements also notes that he is waiting
for the assigned Magistrate Judge to rule on his motion to
appear in forma pauperis in this case, which he
filed on March 16, ...