United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
W. TRUMBLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
29, 2018, the pro se Plaintiff, filed the
above-styled a document titled “Ex Parte Emergency
Application Instanter [sic] for a Stay of Proceedings to
Enforce a Judgement [sic] pending the filing of a Motion to
Grant Relief to be concurrent with An Application to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis”, which was docketed as a federal
question action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No.
Attached thereto were a civil cover sheet [ECF No. 1-2] and a
single page summary of proceedings before the United States
Supreme Court and a 54-page “Petition for Extraordinary
Writ of Mandamus and Equitable Relief for Victims and
Survivors or the Schizophrenia Spectrum of Disorders in
America” [ECF No. 1-1], which Petitioner filed in the
Supreme Court. The undersigned liberally construes
Plaintiff's application as a motion for injunctive
application asserts that Plaintiff intends to become a movant
for relief in the future, but acknowledges that he has not
yet filed a “Motion to Grant Relief”. Rather,
Plaintiff acknowledges that he is a “potential
movant” who “in the weeks ahead” should be
granted additional time to file his claims. ECF No. 1 at 9.
Plaintiff further asserts that he plans to proceed by filing
a Motion to Grant Relief from a Judgment which either: (1)
alleges that the States ignored state disability law in their
attempts to collect taxes; or (2) "request[s] a first
impression ruling on extraordinary matters".
Id. at 10 - 11. Plaintiff claims that two harms
might come to him: (1) Virginia might freeze his bank
accounts; or (2) Maryland might do so. Id. at 13.
Plaintiff claims that freezing his bank accounts might lead
him to relapse after 30 years in remission from active
schizophrenia. Id. at 15 - 16.
STANDARD OF LAW
standard for granting injunctive relief was articulated by
the United States Supreme Court which held in Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest.
restated by the Fourth Circuit, when a plaintiff seeks the
extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction:
The plaintiff “need not establish a certainty of
success, but must make a clear showing that he is likely to
succeed at trial.” A plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must establish that (1) she is likely to succeed
on the merits, (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm
in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of
equities tips in her favor, and (4) an injunction is in the
Int'l Refugee, 883 F.3d at 256 (citing WV
Ass'n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v.
Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing
Winter, 555 U.S. at 7)). This standard becomes even
more exacting when a plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction
that mandates action, as contrasted with the typical form of
a preliminary injunction that merely preserves the status
quo. See East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361
F.3d 808, 828 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Wetzel v.
Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980))
(noting that “mandatory preliminary injunctions do not
preserve the status quo and normally should be granted only
in those circumstances when the exigencies of the situation
demands such relief”).
addressing the merits of Plaintiff's motion, the
undersigned must first determine whether this Court has
jurisdiction. This Court lacks jurisdiction to address
Petitioner's claims because he does not present an active
case or controversy. There has been no adverse action taken
against Petitioner. As he acknowledges, Virginia might freeze
his bank accounts or file liens against him, or Maryland
might do so. Neither State has done so yet. This court has no
jurisdiction to intervene in a matter where there is no case
Constitution specifies that judicial power extends only to
“Cases” and “Controversies, ” Art.
III, § 2. “If a dispute is not a proper case or
controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or
expounding the law in the course of doing so.”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341
(2006); Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates,
Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017). “No principle
is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our
system of government than the constitutional limitation of
federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or
controversies.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811,
818 (1997). There is no such controversy in this case.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540
(2016), the Supreme Court addressed the necessity of standing