UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKYIA T. SKINNER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. NO. 24-00212-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a self-styled Motion For Injunction And Restraining Order brought pursuant

. (Doc. 7, the “Motion”). In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages from multiple prison officials, alleging the use of undue physical force and sexual assault, which allegedly occurred during Plaintiffs prior incarceration in the Louisiana State Penitentiary (the “LSP”) in the year 2000, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 at 2-14). Now, nearly one year after filing the Complaint, (id.), Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. (Doc. 7). Liberally construed, Plaintiff's Motion seeks injunctive relief requiring prison officials to ensure that prison staff follow medical directives noted in prison paperwork for Plaintiffs wheelchair-bound eighty-year-old uncle, Charles E. Daniels (#63240), who is currently incarcerated in the LSP. (/d.). Plaintiff specifically references an incident in which Daniels sustained unspecified injuries “from his head down to his toe” when prison staff allegedly transported Daniels to LSP from the hospital in a “regular van”

rather than a “handicapp [sic] van” in contravention of medical directives noted in prison medical paperwork for Daniels. (Id. at 1-3). Plaintiff links his uncle’s incarceration conditions to Plaintiffs own ongoing litigation in this action by alleging that prison officials have failed to abide by prison medical directives for Daniels in retaliation for Plaintiffs current lawsuit against the State of Louisiana. Ud. at 3). In support of this theory, Plaintiff notes that his brother informed him that a police officer, who is friends with Plaintiffs brother, notified Plaintiffs brother that the Louisiana Law Enforcement Association and the Louisiana District Attorneys Association “ha[ve] it out to get [Plaintiff].” (Id. at 3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65(b)(1) provides: The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)—(B) (emphasis added). While the Court is aware that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has failed to comply with either requirement of Rule 65(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks a TRO based on new facts not set forth in his original Complaint yet does not include any verification attesting to these new facts. Additionally, Plaintiffs Motion does not include a certificate stating his efforts, if any, to provide notice to Defendants’ counsel, or explain the reasons why such notice should not be required. Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)’s verification and notice requirements, standing alone, is a

sufficient basis to deny his request for a TRO. See Hampton v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corp., No. 16-cv-632,

, at *1 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2016) (denying pro se plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order due to failure to comply with Rule 65’s notice requirements); Spears v. Scales, No. 15-11-SDD-RLB,

, at *1 (M.D. La. July 13, 2016) (same).1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction be and is hereby DENIED. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this ay of March, 2025

JUDGE BRIAN A. J SON UNITED STATES D RICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

The Court notes that the issue of whether Plaintiff has “standing” to seek relief on behalf of Daniels, who is not a party to this litigation, is significant. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

(1992). Nonetheless, for the reasons offered herein, the Court need not address the issue at this time.