Slough v. Charlevoix County Sheriff's Department et al

-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID JOHN SLOUGH,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-01015
CHARLEVOIX COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
(ECF No. 8). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on March 27, 2026, and simultaneously filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a motion for preliminary injunction.
(ECF No. 1). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations arising under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 from events occurring between July 2023 and August 2024, and he
references the existence of a 2025 state court criminal prosecution against him that
apparently remains pending. (ECF No. 1). The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for
TRO and dismissed without prejudice his motion for a preliminary injunction, stating
Case 1:26-cv-01015-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 1
of 5

-2-
that Plaintiff could refile his motion for a preliminary injunction once service was
accomplished. (ECF No. 5, PageID.62). Upon Defendants’ successful service, Plaintiff
refiled his motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 8).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stay his criminal sentence and any probation
violation proceedings in at least two underlying state criminal cases and to enjoin
Defendants from further enforcement action against him for an August 2025 traffic stop.
(ECF No. 8, PageID.83). Plaintiff requests that the Court order the preservation of body
camera footage from said traffic stop, schedule a hearing on the motion, and waive or set
a nominal security bond. (Id.).
Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only
if . . . the circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). To decide whether an injunction is
warranted, the Court must consider four factors: (1) whether the movant is likely to
prevail on the merits, (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury if the court
does not grant the injunction, (3) whether a preliminary injunction would cause
substantial harm to others, and (4) whether a preliminary injunction would be in the
public interest. See Samuel v. Herrick Memorial Hospital, 201 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir.
2000).
Case 1:26-cv-01015-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 2
of 5

-3-
Rather than prerequisites, which must each be satisfied, these nondispositive
factors are competing considerations to be weighed and balanced. See Six Clinics
Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Systems, Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 400 (6th Cir. 1997).
Ultimately, the decision whether to grant injunctive relief lies within the Court’s
discretion. See Dana Corp., 251 F.3d at 1118.
Finally, where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to enjoin ongoing state-court criminal
proceedings, a plaintiff “must first demonstrate that ‘great and immediate’ irreparable
harm would occur absent federal intervention.” Ballard v. Stanton, 833 F.2d 593, 594
(6th Cir. 1987) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971)). Plaintiff has failed
to do so. Plaintiff’s theory of irreparable harm is the likelihood of incarceration
following his probation violation proceedings on April 24, 2026. (ECF No. 8,
PageID.81). But he still “may raise constitutional challenges during criminal
proceedings in Michigan either during trial or on appeal.” Branham v. Adair, 39 F.
App’x 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to make the requisite
irreparable harm showing.
Having found that Plaintiff has not established irreparable harm, the Court need
not address the remaining factors for preliminary relief. A.R.D. v. St. Paul Catholic
Sch., 2013 WL 1856006, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013) (“The failure to show irreparable
harm, by itself, can justify the denial of preliminary injunctive relief without
consideration of the other three factors.”).
Case 1:26-cv-01015-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 3
of 5

-4-
Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to
stop “law enforcement action” against him, injunctive relief is not appropriate. (ECF
No. 8, PageID.76). As courts recognize, “obey-the-law” injunctions are not proper. See,
e.g., Perez v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., 655 Fed. Appx. 404, 410-11 (6th Cir., July 14, 2016)
(“The Supreme Court has warned against ‘sweeping injunction[s] to obey the law’ and
has cautioned courts about their ‘duty to avoid’ such orders”).
Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his requests that
the Court order the preservation of body camera footage from the August 2025 traffic
stop, schedule a hearing on the motion, and waive or set a nominal security bond are
appropriate or necessary. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
motion for injunctive relief be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. (ECF No. 8).
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Case 1:26-cv-01015-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 4
of 5

-5-
Respectfully submitted,
Date: April 30, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01015-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 5
of 5