Doe et al v. St. James Parish School Board et al, No. 2:2015cv05370 - Document 14 (E.D. La. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying 12 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/10/2015. (mmm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Doe et al v. St. James Parish School Board et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA J OHN DOE, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-5370 ST. J AMES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL. SECTION: R ORD ER AN D REASON S On October 22, 20 15, J ohn and J ane Doe filed this lawsuit on behalf of their child, Child Doe, alleging constitutional violations in connection with the suspension and expulsion of their child from St. J am es Parish Math and Science Academ y.1 On Novem ber 12, 20 15, plaintiffs m oved for a tem porary restraining order and/ or a prelim inary injunction allowing their son to play in a high school football playoff gam e scheduled for the following day.2 Plaintiffs' m otion was tem porarily reallotted to a different section of this Court, which denied the m otion.3 On Decem ber 9, 20 15, plaintiffs filed a renewed m otion 1 R. Doc. 1, at 2-3. 2 R. Doc. 7. 3 R. Doc. 9. 1 Dockets.Justia.com for a tem porary restraining order.4 Although plaintiffs direct the Court's attention to another high school football playoff gam e--this one scheduled for Decem ber 12, 20 15--plaintiffs argue that their m otion for a tem porary restraining order "is not solely about playing in a football gam e."5 Instead, plaintiffs argue, their m otion seeks to rem edy ongoing constitutional violations by enabling Child Doe to return to St. J am es Parish Math and Sciences as a regular student with full access to all scholastic and extracurricular opportunity that the school m akes available, including participation in a football gam e. Tem porary restraining orders are "extraordinary relief and rarely issued." Albright v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.Supp.2d 523, 532 (E.D. La. 1999). A party can obtain a tem porary restraining order or a prelim inary injunction only if: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the m ovant will prevail on the m erits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm to the m ovant will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the prelim inary injunction or tem porary restraining order will not disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). A court 4 R. Doc. 12-2. 5 Id. at 8. 2 m ay issue a tem porary restraining order without notice only if "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified com plaint clearly show that im m ediate and irreparable injury, loss, or dam age will result to the m ovant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition[.]" Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A). Plaintiffs' filings fail to state specific facts showing that im m ediate and irreparable injury will result to the plaintiffs in the absence of extraordinary relief. To the extent plaintiffs continue to base their irreparable harm claim on Child Doe's inability to play high school football, their argum ent is without m erit. See Khan v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 561 F. Supp. 2d 760 , 766 (S.D. Tex. 20 0 8) (holding that student "will suffer no 'irreparable injury' by not being allowed to participate in or speak at" a high school graduation cerem ony); St. Patrick High Sch. v. N ew Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Associations, No. CIVA 10 -CV-948 (DMC), 20 10 WL 715826, at *4 (D.N.J . Mar. 1, 20 10 ) (holding that there was no irreparable harm when a high school basketball team was prohibited from playing in the state cham pionship); Cruz ex rel. Cruz v. Pennsy lvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, Inc., No. CIV. A. 0 0 -5594, 20 0 0 WL 1781933, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20 , 20 0 0 ) ("Not being able to play on gam e day is certainly a disappointm ent but does not in m y judgm ent constitute the type of harm warranting the extraordinary rem edy of injunctive relief."). Although plaintiffs insist that their m otion is not directed towards 3 football alone, they have not identified any other specific injury that Child Doe will suffer in the absence of im m ediate injunctive relief, m uch less dem onstrated why that injury is irreparable in nature. Thus, plaintiffs cannot obtain the extraordinary relief they seek. See, e.g., RCM Technologies, Inc. v. Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC, 50 2 F.Supp.2d 70 , 74 (D.D.C. 20 0 7) (denying application for temporary restraining order because plaintiff's alleged injuries were speculative and non-specific). For the reasons stated, plaintiffs' m otion for a tem porary restraining order is DENIED. 10th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ day of Decem ber, 20 15. _____________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
