Davis v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KENNETH ARNEZ DAVIS, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3048-X-BW
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY 	§
AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, et al., §
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Emergency Motion for Immediate Return of Minor
Child and Enforcement of Parental Rights, received in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia on August 8, 2025 and transferred to this Court
on November 7, 2025. (Dkt. No. 3.) Based on the relevant filings and applicable
law, the Court should DENY the motion.
Plaintiff Kenneth Arnez Davis filed this action against 47 defendants alleging
a variety of constitutional, statutory, and treaty violations. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.)
In the current motion, Davis seeks ex parte injunctive relief in the form of an
“emergency order compelling the immediate and unconditional return” of his minor
child, who was taken from Davis’s custody in June 2025, and an “order restraining
Defendants from interfering with Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to family unity,
medical choice, and due process.” (Dkt. No. 3 at 6.) Davis’s request for injunctive
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been referred for full case
management.
Case 3:25-cv-03048-X-BW Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
relief prior to and pending resolution of his claims implicates Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65.
As a threshold matter, a preliminary injunction may issue only after notice is
provided to the adverse parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Under Rule 65(b)(1), a
court may issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) without prior notice to an
adverse party, but 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). The party seeking a TRO or injunctive relief bears the
burden of showing that he is entitled to it. See Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993
(5th Cir. 1987). Davis, who is proceeding pro se in this action, has not shown that
he has given notice of his request for injunctive relief to the 47 adverse parties, and
he has not certified in writing any efforts to give notice to same and provided reasons
why such notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), (b).
Given these procedural deficiencies, the Court should DENY Davis’s
Emergency Motion for Immediate Return of Minor Child and Enforcement of
Parental Rights, received on August 8, 2025 and transferred to this Court on
November 7, 2025 (Dkt. No. 3).
Case 3:25-cv-03048-X-BW Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
SO RECOMMENDED on November 17, 2025.
______________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-03048-X-BW Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>