Posted on 10/21/2014 2:59:34 PM PDT by Hostage
In response to the backdoor Executive Amnesty presently in progress (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3217287/posts), the following template is provided:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF [INSERT DISTRICT HERE]
__________________________________________)
[NAMES OF PLAINTIFFS], et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) _____________ Civ. No. [CASE NUMBER HERE]
LEON RODRIGUEZ, et al.,(Director of USCIS) )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion [3] for a Preliminary Injunction.
[Insert short description of any prior litigation]
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion and issue a preliminary injunction
II. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
[Summarize prior motions, rulings, appeals etc.]
B. [Issues Before The Court]
[Discuss the issues pertinent to the court including citations, references, related cases, etc.]
C. Regulatory Background
In [Year], Congress enacted ...
[Discuss all Congressional Mandates that presently prohibit contested Executive Actions ]
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when the party seeking the relief, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion. Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d (251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004). A party carries this burden of persuasion by establishing: (1) that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) that an injunction would further public interest. Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).
The Court evaluates these factors on a “sliding scale.” Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Under this approach, the Court balances the factors against each other to determine whether the plaintiff has shown that “all four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the injunction.” Id. at 1292. Thus, a particularly strong showing on one factor may offset a weaker showing on another factor. See id. at 1291-92 (“If the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.”). The plaintiff, however, must show at least some injury to warrant the preliminary injunction because “the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm.” CityFed Fin. Corp., 58 F.3d at 747.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Court finds that the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to plaintiffs, the balance of hardships, and public interest considerations each weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Counsel, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion and issue the preliminary injunction.
A. Likelihood of Success
[Describe the arguments asserted by plaintiffs; note that the Court need only rule a strong likelihood of success and therefore does not need to find defendents in violation.]
1. [List the clarity and meaning of present federal laws that have jurisdiction]
2. [List how the present action of the defendents violate the meaning and intent of the law] ...
B. Irreparable Injury
This Circuit has established a high standard for irreparable injury . Chapliancy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006). First, a plaintiff must allege an injury that is “both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.” Id. (quoting Wisc. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The alleged injury must be “of such imminence that there is a ‘clear and present’ need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” Id. (citation omitted). Second, the plaintiff’s alleged injury “must be beyond remediation.” Id. Plaintiffs Sherley and Deisher have met this high burden.
[Summarize here how accordingly to the narrative of the issues, plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury in the absence the injunction]
C. Balance of Hardships
The balance of hardships weighs in favor of an injunction.
[Summarize here both plaintiff and defendant hardships, then why the plaintiff's injuries are not speculative and are actual and imminent]
D. Public Interest
Finally, the public interest weighs in favor of a preliminary injunction. “It is in the public interest for courts to carry out the will of Congress and for an agency to implement properly the statute it administers.” Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Shalala, 81 F. Supp. 2d 30, 45 (D.D.C. 2000).
[Summarize here the meaning and intent of the law and how the current actions of the defendents must be enjoined from implementing their present activity in violation of the law]
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have established that the preliminary injunction factors—the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, the balance of hardships, and the public interest—weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion [3] for a preliminary injunction. A separate order shall issue this date.
call in to the show...he will gladly put a conservative on air. especially with this topic..just an idea..and rush to..call in to the show and you just may get it going!
Mike
Outstanding. Thanks for your work.
bump
Bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.