HOOD et al v. TOWN OF OCHLOCKNEE GEORGIA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
FRANCES HOOD and
MATTHEW A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MAYOR RONELLE SEARCY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
CASE NO:
7:25-cv-184-WLS
The Court held an evidentiary telephone hearing on the Plaintiffs' Rule 65 Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) ("TRO Motion") on December 23, 2025. This Order
memorializes that hearing. The Court heard from Plaintiffs, who proceed pro se, and Counsel
for Defendants. The Court swore in Plaintiff Frances Hood. l\,fs, 	Hood testified as to
evidentiary matters and answered questions from the Court and Counsel for Defendants.
Crucially, Ms. Hood testified both that her water has been shut off since November
18, 2025, she received no-pretermination notice before the water shutoff, and she lives with
her three-year-old grandson, who lives with her of whom she has full legal custody.
After 	hearing 	from 	Plaintiffs 1 	and 	Defendants, 	the. Court 	considered 	whether
abstention in accordance with Yo1111ger v. Hanis, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) was required. The Court
held that there are pending state ptoceedings (Case No. SU-CV-2025-000658), those. state
proceedings involve important state interests, and likely afford an adequate opportunity to
raise the constitutional issues of due process. Therefore, 	the Court found 	that 	Yo1111ger
abstention would normally apply.
However, the Court found that an exception to the 	Yo1111ger doctrine applied. If
irreparable injury would occur absent Court action, abstention is not required. Joh11so11 v. F/01ida,
1 The Court essentially heard from Plaintiff Hood, whose issues were pertinent to the TRO. Plaintiff Williams
was present. Defendants were reptesented by Counsel.
1
Case 7:25-cv-00184-WLS Document 21 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 2

32 F.4th 1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2022). 1vis. Hood has been without water since November 18,
2025. And the pending state proceeding is not until January 8, 2026. "An injui-y is 'irreparable'
only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies." Ct11111i11gham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815,
821 (11th Cir. 1987). Money cannot undo the injury caused by being without water for over a
month while caring for a young grandson. Ms. Hood's asserted injury counts as irreparable.
Therefore, the Court need not abstain from this action.
The Court considered the Rule 65 standard for granting a Tempora1y Restraining
Order. The Court found a substantial likelihood Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits,
irreparable injury will occur unless the injunction issues, the threatened injury to Ms. Hood
outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, .and the
injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest.
For these reasons, the TRO J'viotion (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. The TRO. shall remain
in place for fourteen days, or until Tμesday, January 6, 2026 at5:/oPM. Defendants are
hereby 	ORDERED 	to 	immediately restore 	water 	service 	to 	Ms. 	Hood. 	Counsel 	for
Defendant shall communicate to appropriate persons the nature of the Order and. the need
for immediate action to comply. All Parties are ORDERED to immediately notice the Court
with any updates regarding the pending state court action and whether the TRO should be
lifted or extended.
SO ORDERED, thi:a...l.rd day of December 2025 .
•Ml~i~W. LOUIS SAN!)0sR.JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
Case 7:25-cv-00184-WLS Document 21 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 2