REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION11

PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction against Defendant Amy Tooley. (Doc. 3). Shortly after Plaintiff filed this motion, I ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the motion should not be denied. (Doc. 5). In that order, I noted that the motion does not meet rule Local Rule 4.05, that the motion fails to state a legal basis for injunctive relief, and that the motion apparently seeks relief involving proceedings conducted by the Florida Department of Children and Families, the state agency that Tooley works for.

Also in that order, I noted the apparent similarities between this case and a case that Plaintiff filed last April. Indeed, both cases seek relief against Tooley and DCF, and both cases appear to arise from DCF proceedings (or events related to DCF, through the acts of Tooley in her official capacity). Thus I ordered Plaintiff to show cause to why these cases are not duplicative. See, e.g., Greene v. H & R Block E. Enterprises, Inc., 727 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ("It is well settled that a plaintiff `may not file duplicative complaints in order to expand [his or her] legal rights."') (quoting Curtis v. Citibank, 226 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2000)).

Plaintiff has now responded to the order to show cause. (Doc. 8). But in his response, though Plaintiff addresses why these case are not duplicative, he does not address his deficient motion for a temporary injunction. Accordingly, I cannot recommend that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 3) be granted.2

I must, instead, submit that Plaintiff has failed to state a basis for the entry of a temporary injunction. As an initial matter, and as stated in the order to show cause (Doc. 3, n.2), the motion does not conform to the Local Rules. See L.R. 4.05(b)(1-6). Likewise, Plaintiff does not set forth any argument on the elements necessary to obtain injunctive relief: he does not address (1) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the substantial threat of irreparable injury if relief is denied; (3) whether he may suffer an injury that outweighs the opponent's potential injury if relief is not granted; and (4) whether an injunction would not do harm to the public interest.

To obtain the relief he seeks, Plaintiff must address these elements. See, e.g., Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218, 1229 (11th Cir. 2011). Indeed, when a party moves for a temporary restraining order, Local Rule 4.05 requires a brief or legal memorandum on these very elements:

But neither the motion (Doc. 3), nor the response to the order to show cause (Doc. 8), contain a brief or legal memorandum.

As to the duplicity of Plaintiff's cases, Plaintiff represents that they do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. (Doc. 8). Specifically, Plaintiff states that this case arises from events that occurred after he filed suit in April. He elaborates that this case involves, among other events, an alleged false report drafted in May.

While this case may be duplicative of the prior one (see, e.g., Greene v. H & R Block E. Enterprises, Inc., 727 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (noting that a later-filed suit may be dismissed if it "arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the first suit") (emphasis added)), given Plaintiff's assertion that it isn't, and absent additional briefing on the matter, I will simply address the principal issue before me—i.e., the motion for temporary injunction—and recommend that it be denied.3

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction (Doc. 3) be DENIED.

Recommended.