Graham v. Trinity Health Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COREY GRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 25-cv-13419
v. 	Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
TRINITY HEALTH CORP. et al,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DIRECTING
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON MOTION (ECF No. 4)
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Corey Graham alleges, among other things, that
Defendants wrongfully terminated his employment and imposed a trespass notice
against him that has prevented him from receiving medical care at Defendants’
healthcare facilities. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)
Now before the Court is Graham’s motion for an emergency ex parte
temporary restraining order. (See Mot., ECF No. 4.) In the motion, Graham asks the
Court 	to 	suspend 	Defendants’ 	trespass 	notice 	and 	prevent 	Defendants 	from
contacting the police regarding violations of that notice, to order Defendants to
preserve all evidence relevant to his claims, and to reinstate him to his previous
position “with full pay, seniority, and benefits.” (Id., PageID.73-75.) 	Defendants
have not been served with the Summons, the Complaint, or Graham’s motion, nor
Case 2:25-cv-13419-MFL-DRG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4

2
have Defendants been notified of the motion. To the extent that the motion seeks ex
parte relief, the motion is DENIED.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), a court may issue “a
temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party” only
if (1) “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 (2) the moving party certifies
“efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1)(A)-(B). 	Here, Graham has not persuaded the Court that
“immediate and irreparable injury” will occur before Defendants can be heard in
response to the motion. He is therefore not entitled to ex parte relief.
Graham has not simply shown that the relief he seeks is essential to prevent
imminent injury. For example, as noted above, Graham asks the Court to enjoin the
Defendants from enforcing the trespass notice and to prevent Defendants from
contacting the police if Graham enters Defendants’ property to seek medical care
from the Defendants. 	But as Graham acknowledges (see 	Mot., ECF No. 4,
PageID.59), the trespass notice itself contains a carve-out that allows Graham to seek
medical care at Defendants’ facilities. 	And while Graham harbors concerns about
the efficacy of the carve-out, Graham has not yet convinced the Court that the carve
out is ineffective. Moreover, Graham has not shown that medical care in unavailable
Case 2:25-cv-13419-MFL-DRG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4

3
elsewhere from other providers during the small window of time that would pass
before Defendants could be heard on his motion. 	Graham also seeks an order
preventing Defendants from destroying or otherwise altering evidence, but Graham
has not yet shown how existing rules and sanctions are insufficient to dissuade
Defendants from spoliating evidence. 	Finally, Graham seeks reinstatement to his
job, but any injuries from Graham’s alleged wrongful discharge could be fully
compensated through an award of monetary damages at the conclusion of trial.
One 	additional 	factor 	persuades 	the 	Court 	that 	ex 	parte 	relief 	is 	not
appropriate. 	Graham’s dispute with the Defendants has been ongoing for several
months, but he did not file his motion for emergency, ex parte relief until October
27. That suggests that any modest delay from allowing Defendants to respond to the
motion would not result in irreparable harm to Graham.
Accordingly, for all of the reasons explained above, to the extent Graham
seeks ex parte relief, his motion is DENIED. 	The Court will consider Graham’s
motion as one seeking a preliminary injunction, and it will issue injunctive relief, if
at all, only after Graham’s motion is served on the Defendants and the Defendants
are given a fair opportunity to respond to the motion. 	To ensure that this action
moves forward with reasonable speed, at the same time that the Court issues this
order, the Court will issue additional orders (1) granting Graham’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis in this action and (2) directing Graham to file certain
Case 2:25-cv-13419-MFL-DRG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4

4
documents and information with the Clerk of the Court so that Defendants may be
served with the Summons, the Complaint, and Graham’s motion. Once Defendants
are served, the Court will adopt a schedule for expedited briefing on Graham’s
motion and will rule on the motion forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 6, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 6, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
Case 2:25-cv-13419-MFL-DRG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4