Feedback

Holmes V Ivey

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA                              
                      ORLANDO DIVISION                                   

DAVIED HOLMES,                                                           

    Plaintiff,                                                           

v.                                   Case No: 6:25-cv-1287-JSS-NWH       

SHERIFF WAYNE IVEY and                                                   
ARAMARK CORPORATION,                                                     

    Defendants.                                                          

________________________________/                                        

                            ORDER                                        

    On July 11, 2025, Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a document titled 
“W.A.H.P. 1 Kill-Civil Motion for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief 
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”  (Dkt. 1.)  Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor moved 
to proceed in forma pauperis.  See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915(e)(2).         
    Because Plaintiff cites section 1983 and sets forth allegations related to the 
conditions of his confinement, it appears he is attempting to initiate a civil rights 
action.  (See Dkt. 1.)  However, Plaintiff did not use the required prisoner civil rights 
form to initiate this action.  See M.D. Fla. R. 6.04(a)(3) (requiring pro se plaintiff 
prisoners to use the standard form to file a civil complaint).  The complaint is therefore 
missing  certain  required  information,  such  as  a detailed  description  of  Plaintiff’s 
litigation history, and is subject to dismissal without prejudice on that basis.  
    Plaintiff’s  complaint  must  also  comply  with  the  Federal  Rules  of  Civil 
Procedure, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 8, 10, 11, which requires a complaint to contain, 
among other things, a brief and concise statement of each claim raised and the factual 
basis for the claims against each named defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. 8.  Plaintiff briefly 

described claims that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth, and 
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, but these claims do not 
satisfy the applicable standard.                                          
    Additionally,  Plaintiff  summarily  requests  a  temporary  restraining  order 
directing the replacement of jail staff.  (See id. at 8.)  A court’s issuance of a temporary 

restraining order “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the 
movant  clearly  establishe[s]  the  ‘burden  of  persuasion’  as  to  each  of  the  four 
prerequisites.”    Siegel  v.  LePore,  234  F.3d  1163,  1176  (11th  Cir.  2000)  (quoting 
McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)). A party seeking 
a  temporary  restraining  order  or  preliminary  injunction  must  demonstrate:  (1)  a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury if the injunction 
is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict 
on the non-movant, and (4) that the entry of relief would serve the public interest. See 
Chavez v. Fla. SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Parker v. State 
Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001)).  Further, Plaintiff 

must comply with Local Rule 6.01 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 in drafting 
a motion for temporary restraining order, which govern the court’s decision as to 
whether an injunction shall issue.    Plaintiff has not filed a motion for a temporary 
restraining order, an affidavit, or other evidence demonstrating an entitlement to relief.  
(See Dkt. 1.)      M.D. Fla. R. 6.01(a)(2), (a)(6).  Thus, Plaintiff has not complied with 
Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  65  or  Local  Rule  6.01  in  seeking  a  temporary 
restraining order, and so his request is denied. 
     Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice to allow Plaintiff an 
opportunity to properly file a civil rights complaint on the required form and to either 
pay the filing fee or submit an affidavit of indigency. 
        Accordingly: 
        1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 
        2. The  Clerk  is  DIRECTED  to  terminate  any  pending  motions  and 
          deadlines and to close this case. 
        3. The  Clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED  to  mail  Plaintiff an  affidavit  of 
          indigency form and a  prisoner civil rights  complaint form.  If Plaintiff 
          chooses to file a civil rights complaint, he must complete and submit those 
          forms.  Plaintiff should not place the instant case number on the forms as 
          the Clerk will assign a new case number in the event Plaintiff chooses to 
          pursue an action. 
     ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 22, 2025. 

                                             (      pil.    ihe 
                                             vArren   FATES  DISERIC ryUDGE 
Copies furnished to: 
Unrepresented Party 

                                    -3-