UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHAMANA KENT CIVIL ACTION VERSUS TURNER INDUSTRIES NO. 25-00621-BAJ-RLB RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs Amended Civil Rights Complaint For Damages, Injunctive Relief, And Declaratory Relief (Doc. 5), which the Court construes as a Request for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), a Request for a Preliminary Injunction, and a Complaint. In her original Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asserted wrongful termination and discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Defendant Turner Industries, her former employer. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint which asks the Court to provide “emergency relief to reinstate income and allow for continued care.” (Doc. 5 at 3-4). Plaintiffs Amended Complaint added Defendants Rubicon, LLC and International Association of Iron Workers Local 623. Ud. at 1). The Amended Complaint additionally asserts claims for retaliation for protected activity “under the ADA and [Occupational Safety and Health Administration “OSHA”)],” misrepresentation and suppression of material facts in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) proceedings, negligent supervision and denial of medical treatment, violation of OSHA

“recordability requirements,” “[jlJoint employer lability under Title VII and labor law,” and “[fJailure of duty of fair representation [from the] (ron Workers Union).” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that she injured her foot while stepping out of a “lockout- tagout” trailer while working as a temporary laborer for Defendant Turner Industries. Ud. at 1-2). Plaintiff asserts that a subsequent MRI revealed a torn ligament, bone contusion, and chronic swelling. (Ud. at 2). Plaintiff further asserts that in communications with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Turner Industries, its medical contractors, and workers’ compensation providers all mischaracterized the injury as a sprain. (/d. at 2). Plaintiff contends that Defendant Turner Industries provided this knowingly false information to avoid “recordable OSHA classification and liability.” (d.). Plaintiff additionally contends that Defendant Turner Industries subsequently laid her a pretextual reduction in force in which she was misclassified as a “laborer.” (d.). While the emergency relief Plaintiff seeks is not abundantly clear from her Amended Complaint, it appears that she generally seeks a TRO requiring Defendant Turner Industries to rehire her and correct records that document the nature of Plaintiffs injury so that she can receive proper workers’ compensation benefits. (See Doc. 5). . A review of the record indicates that Plaintiff has not yet served any of the Defendants. Plaintiff does not affirm that she has provided notice of any kind to Defendants, nor does she explain why such notice should not be required. (See id.).

Rule 65(b)(1) governs Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO and 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, she has failed to comply with the second requirement of Rule 65(b)(1). Plaintiffs Amended Complaint does not include a certificate describing her efforts to provide notice to Defendants’ attorneys, nor does it explain the reasons why such notice should not be required. (See Doc. 5). Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)’s notice requirements, standing alone, is a sufficient basis to deny her request for a TRO. See Stevenson v. Benjamin, No. 19-cv-637 (M.D. La. February 17, 2021) (denying pro se plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order due to failure to comply with Rule 65’s notice requirements); Hampton v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corp., No. 16 - cv - 6382,

, at *1 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2016) (same); Spears v. Scales, No. 15-11-SDD- RLB,

, at *1 (M.D. La. July 18, 2016) (same). Moreover, Plaintiff failed to articulate her request for a TRO in a document separate from her Complaint. See Local Civil Rule 65 (specifying that “[a]n application for a temporary restraining order or for a preliminary injunction shall be made in a document separate from the complaint and if not, may not be considered by the Court”).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for a TRO be and is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tthat upon service of process, Defendant Turner Industries shall have 21 days to file a response to Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint be and is hereby REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for screening pursuant to

(e) and 1915A.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this qe of August, 2025 lie UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA