Gaddie v. Arrow Truck Sales, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CARMON GADDIE,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-993
ARROW TRUCK SALES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is pro se Plaintiff Carmon Gaddie’s Emergency
Motion to Suspend Vehicle Payments (ECF No. 26). 	The instant motion is
similar to Plaintiff’s previously filed Emergency Motion (ECF No. 3). 	In both
instances, Plaintiff requests the Court order Transport Funding, LLC to
suspend all loan payments and prohibit repossession of Plaintiff’s truck during
litigation. (ECF No. 26 at 2; see ECF No. 3 at 3). The District Judge construed
Plaintiff’s 	first 	Emergency 	Motion 	as 	a 	motion 	for 	temporary 	injunction
without notice to Defendants. 	(ECF No. 7 at 1–2). 	The District Judge denied
Plaintiff’s first Emergency Motion for (1) failing to comply with the threshold
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) and (2) making no
1 This motion was referred to the Undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
(ECF No. 27).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00993 Document 28 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
showing that he fulfilled the prerequisite requirements in order to file a Clear
Air Act case as a private citizen. (Id. at 2).
As of the date of Plaintiff’s instant Emergency Motion (ECF No. 26),
Defendants have each filed answers in the case. 	(See ECF Nos. 23–25). 	As
such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s instant Emergency Motion (ECF No. 26)
as a motion for temporary injunction. 	The four elements a plaintiff must
establish to secure emergency injunctive relief are: (1) a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the
court does not grant the requested relief; (3) that the threatened injury
outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) the
grant of injunctive relief will not disserve the public interest. 	Canal Auth. of
State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572–73 (5th Cir. 1974). 	Injunctive
relief “is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only if the movant
has clearly carried the burden of persuasion with respect to all four factors.”
Allied Marketing Group, Inc. v. CDL Marketing, Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th
Cir. 1989).
As noted by the District Judge (ECF No. 7 at 1), Plaintiff filed this case
as a Clean Air Act case under 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. 	(See ECF No. 22 at 1).
However, Plaintiff still has not made a showing that he has fulfilled the
prerequisite requirements in order to file a Clear Air Act case as a private
citizen. See 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b). The statute forbids a citizen such as Plaintiff
Case 4:26-cv-00993 Document 28 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
from commencing an action “prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice
of the violation (i) to the Administrator [of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency], (ii) to the State in which the violation occurs, and (iii) to
any alleged violator of the standard, 	limitation, or 	order.” 	42 	U.S.C. §
7604(b)(1)(A).
Here, Plaintiff has neither alleged nor shown his compliance with the
law that would permit him to file a Clear Air Act case. 	As such, Plaintiff has
failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. See Louisiana
v. Horseracing Integrity & Safety Auth. Inc., 617 F. Supp. 3d 478, 494 (W.D.
La. 2022) (“If a claim does not [establish a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits], it is unnecessary for a court to look any further.”) (citing Jefferson
Cmty. Health Care Centers, Inc. v. Jefferson Par. Gov’t, 849 F.3d 615, 624–25
(5th Cir. 2017)).
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion to Suspend Vehicle Payments (ECF No. 26) be DENIED.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
Case 4:26-cv-00993 Document 28 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on May 4, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00993 Document 28 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4