United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff John Doe's
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Injunctive Relief . Defendants have not responded in writing,
but a brief hearing on the emergency motion was heard on
August 24, 2108. Having reviewed the motion and heard
arguments from counsel, and otherwise being duly advised in
the premises, for the reasons set forth below, the motion
will be denied without prejudice to the
preliminary injunctive relief sought, for which a hearing
will be held on September 10, 2018.
to the documents filed in support of this emergency motion,
by letter dated August 10, 2018, the University's Title
IX Office advised Plaintiff that, following an investigation
that occurred in July 2018, the University's
investigative panel had determined that Plaintiff violated
the University's Sexual Misconduct Policy, that
disciplinary sanctions would be issued, and that Plaintiff
would be informed of the sanctions no later than August 24,
2018. [10 at Ex. C and D]. In a letter dated August 21, 2018,
the Vice President of Student Affairs notified Plaintiff that
a sanction of a one-year suspension was being imposed. [10 at
Ex. E]. On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed this emergency
motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1),
requesting a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”)/temporary injunction and seeking the
(1) enjoining the Defendants from violating John Doe's
constitutional rights and rights established under Title IX;
(2) enjoining them from continuing the discriminatory,
arbitrary, capricious and unlawful disciplinary action that
was issued against him;
(3) requiring the University to immediately restore the
Plaintiff as a student in good standing at the University;
(4) allowing the Plaintiff to enroll and attend courses with
the University of Southern Mississippi at the beginning of
(5) allowing Plaintiff to have unrestricted on-campus access
to his classes and non-residential University buildings; and
(6) prohibiting further disciplinary proceedings and
retaliatory conduct against the Plaintiff pending resolution
of the matter.
purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status
quo and thus prevent irreparable harm until the respective
rights of the parties can be ascertained during a trial on
the merits.” Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v.
Nat'l Screen Svc. Corp., 441 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir.
1971). It has long been the law that to be entitled to
injunctive relief, a party must show “(1) a substantial
likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits, (2) a
substantial threat that irreparable injury will result if the
injunction is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury
outweighs the threatened harm to defendant, and (4) that
granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the
public interest.” Miss. Power & Light Co. v.
United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir.
1985) (citing Canal Authority of State of Fla. v.
Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974)). A preliminary
injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be
granted unless the party prevails on all four elements.
Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo Cty. Tex,, Inc.
v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2012).
case, Plaintiff is seeking not only prohibitory injunctive
relief, but also, more importantly, mandatory injunctive
relief, which requires the University to take action. See
Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc. 516 U.S. 479, 484 (1996)
(explaining that a prohibitory injunction
“restrains” a party from acting whereas a
mandatory injunction requires a party to “take
action”). Mandatory injunctions are “particularly
disfavored.” Pham v. Univ. of La. at Monroe,
194 F.Supp.3d 534, 543 (W.D. La. 2016)(quoting Roark v.
Individuals of Fed. Bur. of Prisons, Former and Current,
558 Fed.Appx. 471 (5th Cir. 2014)). Only in rare instances is
the issuance of this type of injunction proper, and a
mandatory injunction at the early stages of the proceedings
simply “should not be issued unless the facts and law
clearly favor of the moving party.” Id.;
Harris v. Wilters, 596 F.2d 678, 680 (5th Cir. 1979)
(citing Exhibitors, 441 F.2d at 561); Miami
Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Callander, 256 F.2d 410,
415 (5th Cir. 1958). Whether or not an injunction shall issue
is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Exhibitors, 441 F.2d at 561.
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of
showing entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandatory
injunctive relief by way of a TRO. Considering the brief
arguments by counsel at the hearing on August 24, 2018, the
Court is not convinced that the facts and law clearly favor
Plaintiff at this juncture. That is not to say Plaintiff will
not be able carry his burden at the full hearing on
entitlement to a preliminary injunction, but for now, putting
that observation aside, Plaintiff has not shown that such ...