Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Danielle Clark sought an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction concerning her Section 504 Non-Elderly Disabled Housing Choice Voucher benefits. She asked the court to require Housing Alliance HTX, formerly the Houston Housing Authority, to preserve her benefits, fund emergency hotel or corporate housing and relocation per diems, and proceed with an allegedly delayed informal hearing.
Clark asserted that she had experienced unsafe conditions at her residence, including lack of heat during a January cold front and lack of air conditioning during July heat, which she said resulted in an emergency-room visit for heat exhaustion. She also alleged continuing housing insecurity and mental anguish. Her filings indicated that she and her family were then staying at a hotel funded by an outside adoption agency.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo recommended that the district court deny Clark’s emergency motion. The report concluded that Clark did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), which governs issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice. Although Clark said she had notified defendants on July 15, she did not file the motion until July 31 and did not establish the rule’s requirements for immediate injury before defendants could be heard or for excusing notice.
The report also concluded that Clark had not shown a substantial threat of immediate, irreparable harm. Her allegations primarily described past injuries and conclusory claims of ongoing distress and housing insecurity; those assertions did not establish harm that could not be remedied at law. Having found the irreparable-harm requirement unmet, the magistrate judge did not address the other preliminary-injunction factors. The report gave the parties fourteen days to object.
Key Takeaways
- A failure to meet Rule 65(b)(1)’s requirements can independently justify denying a request for an ex parte TRO.
- Past harms and conclusory allegations of housing insecurity do not, without more, establish immediate irreparable injury.
- The ruling was a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, subject to objections and district-court review.
Why It Matters
The report illustrates the demanding procedural and evidentiary requirements for emergency injunctive relief, even in claims involving alleged unsafe housing conditions and housing-voucher benefits. A movant must provide specific facts showing imminent, noncompensable harm and comply with the notice requirements for an ex parte TRO.