Green v. Carlson, 19-cv-01666 (ECT/SER). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20190815c96
Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER ERIC C. TOSTRUD , District Judge . Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [ECF Nos. 25 and 32] is DENIED. Plaintiff's filings describe no basis upon which a temporary restraining order may be granted. Plaintiff describes no discernible facts justifying the motion, cites inapplicable law, and thus, even liberally construing his filings, does not approach satisfying the exacting standards that must be met to justify issuance of the extraordinary remedy of a restraining o
Summary: ORDER ERIC C. TOSTRUD , District Judge . Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [ECF Nos. 25 and 32] is DENIED. Plaintiff's filings describe no basis upon which a temporary restraining order may be granted. Plaintiff describes no discernible facts justifying the motion, cites inapplicable law, and thus, even liberally construing his filings, does not approach satisfying the exacting standards that must be met to justify issuance of the extraordinary remedy of a restraining or..
More
ORDER
ERIC C. TOSTRUD, District Judge.
Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [ECF Nos. 25 and 32] is DENIED. Plaintiff's filings describe no basis upon which a temporary restraining order may be granted. Plaintiff describes no discernible facts justifying the motion, cites inapplicable law, and thus, even liberally construing his filings, does not approach satisfying the exacting standards that must be met to justify issuance of the extraordinary remedy of a restraining order.
Source: Leagle
