Brummett v. Dallas Housing Authority

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHAWN E. BRUMMETT, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:26-cv-58-E-BN
§
DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY, §
§
Defendant. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Shawn E. Brummett filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the Fair Housing Act against the Dallas Housing Authority. See Dkt. No. 3. And
United States District Judge Ada Brown referred Brummett’s lawsuit to the
undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
Brummett filed an ex parte emergency motion for temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 5.
The undersigned now enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation that the Court should deny the motion.
Discussion
Granting a preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary remedy which requires
the movant to unequivocally show the need for its issuance.” Valley v. Rapides Par.
Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. C.D.L.
Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Case 3:26-cv-00058-E-BN Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
So, to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a movant must unequivocally “show
(1) a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits, (2) a substantial threat
that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) his
threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to
enjoin, and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public
interest.” Bluefield Water Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Starkville, Miss., 577 F.3d 250, 252-53
(5th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); accord Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d
567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974).
And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “has repeatedly
cautioned that [such relief] should not be granted unless the party seeking it has
clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” Voting for Am.,
Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up).
“A TRO is simply a highly accelerated and temporary form of preliminary
injunctive relief,” so “[t]o obtain a [TRO], an applicant must show entitlement to a
preliminary injunction.” Horner v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-665-D, 2017 WL
978100, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017) (cleaned up). But, for an ex parte TRO, the
applicant must also meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(b)(1), which provides:
The court may issue a [TRO] 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.
Case 3:26-cv-00058-E-BN Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1).
Although Brummett included a declaration under the penalty of perjury in his
motion, it contains only conclusory statements as to harm, not specific facts as to
immediate and irreparable injury before DHA can be heard. See Dkt. No. 5 at 1. And
as to the second requirement, Brummett provides only a form certificate of service
indicating that the motion “was served on Defendants by U.S. Mail and/or electronic
means.” Id. at 2.
But, even if Brummett had met the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), his motion
should be denied because both the motion and his complaint contain primarily
conclusory statements of the elements for his claims but do not provide sufficient
factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. See Dkt. Nos. 3, 5; see also
Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam) (plaintiff must
“plead facts sufficient to show” that the claims asserted have “substantive
plausibility” by stating “simply, concisely, and directly events” that plaintiff contends
entitle him to relief (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)-(3), (d)(1), (e))). And his motion also
primarily sets out the elements for preliminary injunctive relief but does not allege
specific facts to support the conclusory assertions that those elements have been met.
See Dkt. No. 5.
So, because he has not met the requirements for an ex parte TRO, has not
shown a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits, and has not
sufficiently alleged the other elements for preliminary injunctive relief, Brummett’s
motion should be denied.
Case 3:26-cv-00058-E-BN Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
Recommendation
The Court should deny Plaintiff Shawn Brummett’s emergency motion for a
TRO and preliminary injunction.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, 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). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: January 20, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00058-E-BN Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>