Diana Jackson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant-appellee, 14 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 1993)

ORDER

Diana Jackson appeals the denial of her request for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") against the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). She brought suit alleging that the FBI conspired to torture, harrass and kill her after she reported an incident of police brutality by the Chicago Police Department to the FBI. She also asserted that the FBI is retaliating against her because she reported an individual responsible for the forgery of government documents to the U.S. Secret Service, and that this person "was in league" with the Chicago police officers.

The grant or denial of a TRO is a nonappealable order. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) (allowing appeals of preliminary injunction motions). A TRO exists for a brief period of time, and is ex parte and informal. Geneva Assurance Syndicate, Inc. v. Medical Emergency Services Associates, 964 F.2d 599, 600 (7th Cir. 1992). No exception to this general principle is applicable here. Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 86 (1974) ("a [TRO] continued beyond the time permissible under Rule 65 must be treated as a preliminary injunction"); Diginet, Inc. v. Western Union ATS, Inc., 958 F.2d 1388, 1392 (7th Cir. 1992) (same); Doe v. Village of Crestwood, 917 F.2d 1476, 1477 (7th Cir. 1990) (failure to review would deny the appellant all meaningful relief), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 3025 (1992); Stricklin v. Regents of University of Wisconsin, 420 F.2d 1257, 1259 (7th Cir. 1970) (injunctive order appealable where it was entered after notice, a hearing, the consideration of affidavits, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the grant of substantive relief). But see Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 473 U.S. 1301, 1305 (1985) (appellate court had no jurisdiction where denial of TRO was not a de facto denial of a preliminary injunction).

The FBI was not served with the complaint, nor was it present at the hearing. Instead, the "hearing" served simply as a forum for the judge to deny the TRO based on the insufficiency of the motion filed. No witnesses were heard, no further arguments were presented, and no other evidence was considered. Because Jackson's motion properly is construed as a TRO, we DISMISS for want of jurisdiction.