Chronicles v. Loyola University New Orleans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA CHRONICLES 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	No. 25-2211
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS 	SECTION I
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Joshua Chronicles’s (“plaintiff”) motion1 for
a 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	(“TRO”). 	For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	the 	Court
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff’s motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a third-year law student at defendant Loyola University New
Orleans (“defendant”).2 On October 17, 2025, he was subject to an administrative
disciplinary hearing regarding “an incident that occurred on or around September 28,
2025.”3 	The 	administrative 	hearing 	outcome 	document 	attached 	to 	plaintiff’s
complaint indicates that the incident involved an email sent by plaintiff to university
administrators and faculty members that allegedly violated defendant’s School Code
of Conduct.4 Plaintiff was found responsible for violating the Student Code of
Conduct, specifically, the abusive conduct policy, the disruptive conduct policy, the
computer and internet use policy, the discrimination and harassment policy, and the
1 R. Doc. No. 8.
2 R. Doc. No. 1, at 7.
3 See R. Doc. No. 1-3, at 2.
4 See id. at 2–3.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 7

2
failure to comply with administrative instructions policy.5 Defendant suspended
plaintiff for one year beginning on October 28, 2025.6
Shortly thereafter, plaintiff brought this suit against defendant, alleging that
“the suspension is grossly disproportionate, procedurally flawed, and motivated by
racial, religious, and gender bias.”7 On the Civil Cover Sheet, plaintiff identifies the
causes of action as arising under “Title IX and Title VI.”8 In his complaint, plaintiff
states that jurisdiction “arises under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Due Process Clause
of the U.S. Constitution.”9 His complaint also states that plaintiff has “filed a Title
VI complaint with OCR regarding racial, religious, and gender-based discrimination
and retaliation.”10 Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an “[i]mmediate temporary
restraining order (TRO) halting enforcement of [his] suspension.”11
On November 3, 2025, summons as to defendant was issued.12 That same day,
plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his TRO request.13 The supplement includes a
medical record from the VA Emergency Department that indicates that plaintiff was
seen on November 3, 2025, “for issues related to PTSD, insomnia, and anxiety due to
recent life/social stressors.”14 Plaintiff states that these medical issues were “due to
5 Id. at 2.
6 See id. at 4.
7 R. Doc. No. 1, at 7.
8 R. Doc. No. 1-4, at 1.
9 R. Doc. No. 1, at 8.
10 Id. at 7, 11.
11 Id. at 9.
12 R. Doc. No. 5.
13 R. Doc. No. 7.
14 R. Doc. No. 7-1, at 1.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 7

3
Defendant’s 	suspension” 	of 	him, 	and 	that 	his 	“[r]einstatement 	[is] 	medically
required.”15
On November 5, 2025, plaintiff filed an “emergency motion for immediate
TRO,” which states that defendant “doubled [plaintiff’s] suspension from 1 to 2 years,
8 days after” he filed his complaint.16 The motion includes a “Notice of Appeal
Decision” from defendant’s Director of Student Conduct that informs plaintiff of the
appellate review of his disciplinary case.17 The notice states that after reviewing the
appellate materials, “the Appellate Body unanimously determined that the original
sanction was insufficient to address the gravity of the violations and to support
meaningful reflection and behavioral changes,” and it modified the original sanctions
such that plaintiff’s disciplinary suspension now runs from November 4, 2025, to
November 4, 2027.18 He also filed a motion to expedite consideration of his motion for
TRO that same day.19
Plaintiff states in his motion for TRO that “immediate and irreparable injury
will result before Defendant can be heard due to retaliatory 2-year suspension and
VA-documented acute PTSD decompensation from November 3-5, 2025.”20 He asks
this Court to enjoin his 2-year suspension, order his immediate reinstatement, set a
15 See R. Doc. No. 7, at 1–2; see also R. Doc. No. 8, at 2 (“Causation: ‘Solely triggered
by Loyola suspension and retaliation.’”).
16 See R. Doc. No. 8, at 1.
17 See R. Doc. No. 8-3, at 1–7.
18 Id. at 7.
19 See R. Doc. No. 9.
20 R. Doc. No. 8, at 1.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 7

4
hearing for after his final exams in December 2025, and “GRANT expedited discovery
on appeal process and PTSD knowledge.”21
There is no indication in the record that defendant has been served, and no
counsel has filed an appearance on behalf of defendant. Defendant has not responded
to any of plaintiff’s filings.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) explains that “[t]he court may issue a
temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its
attorney only if:”
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
“The Rule 65(b)(1) criteria are strict requirements, not mere technicalities, that
establish minimum due process.” Cajun Servs. Unlimited, LLC v. Benton Energy
Serv. Co., No. 17-491, 2020 WL 10486334, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 16, 2020) (Ashe, J.)
(internal modifications omitted).
With respect to notice, “[t]he normal circumstances for which a district court
is justified in proceeding ex parte is where notice to the adverse party is impossible,
or in cases where the adverse party is unknown or is unable to be found.” Evans v.
Select Jan. Six Comm., No. 22-682, 2022 WL 17724137, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15,
21 Id. at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 7

5
2022). The moving party must make “a clear showing that immediate and irreparable
injury will result before the adverse party can be heard” for the court to issue a TRO
ex parte. CompuCom Sys., Inc. v. WJ Glob., LLC, No. 14-3625, 2014 WL 5032747, at
*2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2014).
A plaintiff proceeding pro se must “still demonstrate facts that would entitle
him to the relief requested,” including ex parte injunctive relief. See Martono-Chai v.
Williams, No. 25-578, 2025 WL 974251, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2025) (Barbier, J.); see
also Hampton v. First Guar. Mortg. Corp., No. 16-632, 2016 WL 5796886, at *1 (M.D.
La. Sept. 30, 2016) (“[W]hile the Court is aware that the Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, she has failed to certify in writing any efforts made to give notice to the
Defendants, nor has she stated the reasons why notice should not be required.”).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requisites of Rule 65(b), and, therefore,
the Court cannot issue the ex parte TRO he seeks. First, plaintiff has not submitted
an affidavit or verified complaint.22 Cf. Brown v. Tokpah, No. 21-1844, 2021 WL
4845781, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2021) (Milazzo, J.) (“Plaintiff’s Complaint and
Amended Complaint are not verified, and although one references Plaintiff’s affidavit
in multiple paragraphs, no such document is attached to either pleading. Thus,
Plaintiff has failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.”); Stone Metals
Am., LLC v. Eubank, No. 20-0253, 2020 WL 570906, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2020)
(“[B]ecause Plaintiff did not file a verified complaint, these allegations cannot satisfy
22 See R. Doc. Nos. 1, 7–9.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 7

6
Plaintiff's burden under Rule 65(b)(1)(A).”). Even if the Court were to consider the
unverified allegations in plaintiff’s filings, plaintiff makes no effort to establish that
irreparable harm will result before defendant is given an opportunity to respond. See
Cajun Servs. Unlimited, LLC v. Benton Energy Serv. Co., No. 17-491, 2020 WL
10486334, at *5 (E.D. La. Oct. 16, 2020) (“Plaintiffs have not begun to carry their
heightened burden under Rule 65(b)(1)(A) of showing that immediate and irreparable
injury ‘will result’ in the short period needed for [the defendant] to respond.”); see also
Stone Metals Am., LLC, 2020 WL 570906, at *2 (“For all of his statements claiming
irreparable harm resulting from both Defendants’ actions, [the] declaration is
missing the key requirement: ‘specific facts . . . [which] clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse
party can be heard in opposition.’” (emphasis in original)).
Plaintiff’s filings also have not certified that he has made any effort to notify
defendant of the motion for TRO, nor has he explained why he should not be required
to provide notice to defendant of the same. See Silver v. Off. of Att’y Gen., No. 24-1298,
2025 WL 890734, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-50350,
2025 WL 3079092 (5th Cir. June 4, 2025) (denying plaintiff’s request for ex parte
relief because plaintiff had not “certif[ied] in writing any efforts made to give notice
to Defendants or why notice should not be required.”). Although the record indicates
that summons has been issued as to defendant, no proof of service has been filed in
the record.23
23 See R. Doc. No. 5.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 7

7
A plaintiff’s “noncompliance with Rule 65, alone, is sufficient for the Court to
deny the motion.” Howell v. Lake Villas No. 2 Homeowners Ass’n, No. 18-14332, 2019
WL 95472, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2019) (Africk, J.); see also Goodson v. City of Dallas,
No. 	25-816, 	2025 	WL 	1373737, 	at 	*2 	(N.D. 	Tex. 	Apr. 	7, 	2025), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:25-816, 2025 WL 1333657 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2025)
(“[Plaintiff’s] failure to satisfy Rule 65(b)(1)’s requirements, standing alone, is a
sufficient basis to deny his request for a TRO.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s ex parte motion24 for a temporary restraining
order is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	plaintiff’s 	motion25 	to 	expedite 	is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion26 to supplement the TRO
is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 10, 2025.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24 R. Doc. No. 8.
25 R. Doc. No. 9.
26 R. Doc. No. 7.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 10 Filed 11/10/25 Page 7 of 7