Free Order on Motion for TRO - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—00687-GI\/IS Document 10 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 3
i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DENNIS SHIPMAN, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 07-687-***-LPS
STATE OF DELAWARE, DELAWARE g
STATE POLICE, CORPORAL )
NICHOLAS TERRANOVA, TROOPER )
JOHN DOE, and REYNOLDS )
TOWING, )
Defendants. 3
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this }“¥day of November, 2007, having considered plaintiffs
letter/motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (D.I. 8), and the papers
submitted thereto;
IT IS ORDERED that the letter/motion is denied, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff, David Shipman, who proceeds pro se, filed a
letter/motion seeking emergency injunctive relief. He seeks an order enjoining
defendants from executing, what he believes are improperly obtained, arrest and bench
warrants issued by a Delaware Justice ofthe Peace Court pending a final disposition in
this civil rights case. Plaintiff alleges the warrants for his arrest on criminal violations
were issued after he lodged a formal assault complaint against defendant Corporal
Nicholas Terranova ("Terranova") for Terranova’s alleged actions during a traffic stop
the evening of October 21, 2007.
2. Standard. When considering a motion for a temporary restraining order or

Case 1:07-cv—00687-Gl\/IS Document 10 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 2 of 3
preliminary injunction, plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm; (3) granting the injunction will not result
in irreparable harm to the defendant(s); and (4) granting the injunction is in the public
interest. Maldonado v. Houstoun, 157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1997). "[A]n injunction
may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future
invasion of rights." Continental Group, lnc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359
(3d Cir. 1980)(quotlng Holiday Inns of Am., Inc. v. B & B Corp., 409 F.2d 614, 618 (3d
Cir. 1969)). "The relevant inquiry is whether the movant is in danger of suffering
irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be issued." SI Handling
Sys., Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985).
3. Discussion. Plaintiff states that if an injunction does not issue he will suffer
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damages in his reinstatement to a sensitive
security position in New York state government. He indicates reinstatement has been
held in abeyance pending an exhaustive nationwide background check and that a
permanent arrest record, whetherjustified or not, will immediately show up on
background checks and result in a formal denial of reinstatement to the security
position.
4. The court will deny the motion on the basis of the Younger abstention
doctrine. "[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending
proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions." Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. at 37, 45 (1971). Younger provides that federal courts may not stay or enjoin
pending state criminal proceedings except under special circumstances. Q The court
finds that plaintiffs position for issuance of an injunction does not provide sufficient
-2-

Case 1:07-cv—00687-Gl\/IS Document 10 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 3 of 3
lspecial circumstance to convince the court to take the extraordinary step of issuing an
injunction to enjoin the execution of state issued criminal bench and arrest warrants
pending disposition ofthe civil rights action plaintiff has filed in this court.
5. Conclusion. Therefore, the letter/motion for an emergency temporary
restraining order (D.I. 8) is denied.
United Statg District Judge
-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 10

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 10

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 10

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 3 of 3