Amen El Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i v. Schnell

Background

The dispute arose from the COVID-19 response at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater, where Amen El is incarcerated. Amen El filed a motion for an ex parte order and emergency hearing seeking relief that included permission to purchase a more efficient face mask and other personal protective equipment, access to disinfectant, and ethics training for facility staff. Although he asked the court not to treat the filing as a preliminary-injunction or temporary-restraining-order request, the magistrate judge treated it as a request for a preliminary injunction.

Amen El later filed a separate motion for a temporary restraining order seeking additional relief, including permission to clean packages and surfaces, purchase personal protective equipment, and access private medical care. He objected to recommendations concerning both motions. His objection to the later recommendation asked the court to allow him to withdraw that motion.

First Motion

The court independently reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation and rejected Amen El’s arguments. It held that the magistrate judge had properly applied the more flexible reading given to filings by people representing themselves. That standard did not allow the court to add facts or create legal theories that Amen El had not presented.

The court also agreed that the first motion sought a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is intended to preserve the existing situation until a fuller hearing can occur, while a preliminary injunction generally preserves the parties’ positions until trial. Because Amen El sought an emergency hearing at which defendants could respond, the court agreed that the motion was for a preliminary injunction.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), a preliminary injunction may be issued only after notice to the opposing party. The court found no evidence that Amen El had served defendants with notice, so it denied the motion on that procedural ground. The court also ruled that the motion would be denied even if defendants had received notice. Applying the four factors used for preliminary injunctions—irreparable harm, the balance between that harm and harm to the other parties, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the public interest—the court found that Amen El had not addressed three factors. The court therefore concluded that he had not met his burden.

Second Motion and Disposition

The court treated Amen El’s objection to the January recommendation as a request to dismiss his temporary-restraining-order motion without prejudice. The court granted that request and dismissed the motion without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling the motion.

The court overruled Amen El’s objection to the November recommendation, adopted that recommendation in its entirety, denied the motion for an ex parte order to show cause and emergency hearing, overruled the January recommendation as moot, and dismissed the temporary-restraining-order motion without prejudice. Judge David S. Doty signed the order on February 19, 2021.