Meranelli v. State of Minnesota

Background

Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli sued the State of Minnesota and other defendants. She asked for a temporary restraining order (an emergency order that can sometimes be issued before the opposing side has been heard) and a preliminary injunction (an order maintaining or changing conduct while a case continues).

On April 20, 2022, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued an order and report and recommendation. He granted Meranelli permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants, and recommended denying the requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction without prejudice. The district court’s order addressed only the recommended disposition of those two requests.

Objections and analysis

Meranelli objected that denying the requests before service was premature and would require her to submit duplicative papers after the defendants received notice. The court rejected that objection. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a temporary restraining order issued without notice requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard, along with a written certification describing efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required. The court agreed that Meranelli had not satisfied those requirements.

A preliminary injunction may be issued only after notice to the opposing party. Meranelli acknowledged that the defendants had not received notice when she filed her requests and when she objected. The court noted that the defendants had since been served. It also explained that a later preliminary-injunction motion would need a legal memorandum, affidavits, and exhibits under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, which Meranelli had not submitted with her complaint.

Meranelli also argued that her First Amendment free-speech claim established irreparable harm because the loss of First Amendment freedoms can constitute irreparable injury. The court explained that this principle does not automatically require an injunction and that the cited Supreme Court decision involved the timing of political speech. The court concluded that Meranelli’s claim was not clearly connected to that issue. It further found that her pleadings did not establish the other required factors, including a likelihood of success on the merits, a favorable balance of harms, or that an injunction would serve the public interest.

Ruling

Judge Menendez overruled Meranelli’s objections, accepted the report and recommendation, and denied her requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the lawsuit.