Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Perry Scott Martin, who referred to himself as “H.R.H. The Prince Perry,” filed an action against the City of Dallas and other respondents. His complaint alleged that the Dallas Police Department had harassed him for being a royal-family member, violated his civil rights as a sovereign, infringed and denied his immunity, and damaged his name.
Martin moved for a temporary restraining order. The court found that the motion did not identify what conduct or person he wanted restrained, what protection he sought, or what injury, loss, or damage would occur without immediate relief.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a movant seeking a TRO must present specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will occur before the opposing party can be heard. The movant also must establish a likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable injury, a favorable balance of harms, and consistency with the public interest.
Martin’s motion alleged no injury, loss, or damage that would occur if the court declined to issue a TRO, much less a likely irreparable injury. Although the court acknowledged that being told he was not a member of a royal family might be insulting to him, it concluded that the motion contained no facts satisfying Rule 65.
Key Takeaways
- A TRO motion must identify the conduct to be restrained and the immediate harm the requested relief would prevent.
- Allegations in a complaint do not establish entitlement to emergency relief when the TRO motion fails to show that irreparable injury is likely.
- The court denied only the request for a temporary restraining order; it did not resolve the merits of Martin’s underlying claims.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a request for emergency injunctive relief requires concrete, specific facts showing likely and irreparable harm. General allegations of harassment, civil-rights violations, reputational damage, or infringed immunity do not satisfy Rule 65 when the movant fails to explain what imminent injury will occur without a TRO.