Nastri et al v. Garland et al
| David J. Nastri and We The Patriots USA, Inc |
| Merrick Garland and Louis DeJoy |
| 3:2024cv00222 |
| February 20, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vernon D Oliver |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER denying #1 Request for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. On February 20, 2024, Plaintiffs commenced this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 930(a)'s ban on the possession of firearms in post offices. (ECF No. #1 .) The Complaint includes requests for an emergency temporary restraining order and nationwide preliminary injunction barring Defendants from enforcing 18 U.S.C. 930(a). (Id. at 12.) The Court takes each of these requests in turn. A court may issue a temporary restraining order without notifying "the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or 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 certified in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why is should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). These requirements are stringent and must be scrupulously honored. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Grand Teton Pros., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-933 (VAB), 2019 WL 4439501, at *2 (D. Conn. June 18, 2019). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the stringent requirements of Rule 65. Plaintiffs have only filed an unverified complaint, as opposed to "an affidavit or verified complaint." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Nor has Plaintiffs' counsel certified that efforts were made to serve the Defendants, or why such service should not be required here, as required by Rule 65(b)(1)(B). Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs an ex parte temporary restraining order. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs complied with Rule 65, it is unclear how the request satisfies the purpose of "preserv[ing] an existing situation in statu quo until the court has an opportunity to pass upon the merits of the demand for a preliminary injunction." Garcia v. Yonkers School Dist., 561 F.3d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).The request for a preliminary injunction must also be denied at this juncture. A court may issue a preliminary injunction "only on notice to the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). As Plaintiffs have not filed proof of service on the docket, there is no evidence that the defendants have notice of the instant request and thus, the Court cannot grant the requested injunction.Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs' requests for an emergency temporary restraining order and nationwide preliminary injunction without prejudice to refiling. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 2/29/2024.(Dao, J)
|
| Filing 9 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Louis DeJoy, Merrick Garland* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Cameron Lee Atkinson* *Atkinson Law, LLC* *122 Litchfield Road P.O. Box 340 Ste. 2* *Harwinton, CT 06791*. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #5 Electronic Filing Order, #7 Standing Protective Order, #1 Complaint filed by We The Patriots USA, Inc, David J. Nastri, #2 Disclosure Statement filed by We The Patriots USA, Inc, David J. Nastri, #4 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, 3 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #6 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Signed by Clerk on 2/23/2024.(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 7
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 2/20/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
| Filing 6 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 2/20/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/20/2024 Discovery due by 8/21/2024 Dispositive Motions due by 9/25/2024 Signed by Clerk on 2/20/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
| Judge Vernon D. Oliver and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 2/20/2024.(Maturo, F.) |
| Filing 2 Disclosure Statement by David J. Nastri, We The Patriots USA, Inc. (Atkinson, Cameron) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Louis DeJoy, Merrick Garland ( Filing fee $405 receipt number ACTDC-7653869.), filed by David J. Nastri, We The Patriots USA, Inc.(Atkinson, Cameron) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Louis DeJoy, Merrick Garland. (Atkinson, Cameron) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
