Irwin v. Miles
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-00755
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Irwin v. Miles, Judge Tunheim denied Jerry T. Irwin’s temporary-restraining-order request because he did not satisfy notice requirements.
Jerry T. Irwin’s request for a temporary restraining order was denied; the order addressed the request against David Miles and the other defendants.
What happened
In Irwin v. Miles, Jerry T. Irwin asked the court for a temporary restraining order against David Miles and other defendants.
Irwin admitted that he had not tried to notify the defendants. He argued that notice might lead them to retaliate against him, including by having him accused of violating parole. The court found that explanation too general to meet the required standard.
Judge Tunheim denied the temporary-restraining-order portion of Irwin’s motion because it did not satisfy the federal notice rule. The decision did not prevent Irwin from filing a future motion for a preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- Irwin v. Miles · No. 0:20-cv-00755
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Jerry T. Irwin, representing himself, sought a temporary restraining order against David Miles and other defendants. The order was based on findings, legal conclusions, and a recommendation by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated March 26, 2020. No objections were filed to that recommendation.
Issue
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(B) allows a court to issue a temporary restraining order without notifying the opposing party only if the person seeking the order certifies in writing what efforts were made to provide notice and why notice should not be required.
Irwin admitted that he had made no effort to notify the defendants. He argued that notifying them might cause them to conceal their conduct or retaliate against him, including by having him accused of violating parole because he filed the lawsuit.
Ruling
The court held that Irwin’s explanation was conclusory and did not satisfy Rule 65(b)(1)(B). It therefore denied the portion of his motion seeking a temporary restraining order. The order states that this decision was without prejudice to Irwin filing a future motion for a preliminary injunction. The court did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.