Shumate v. Benton County, Arkansas et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
PAUL SHUMATE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:25-cv-05257-TLB-CDC
BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS;
SHERIFF SHAWN HOLLOWAY; MAJOR
ROBERT BERSI; JOHN DOE
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS 1–10; JOHN
DOE NURSES / MEDICAL STAFF 1–5;
CHRIS WILLIS; JOHN DOE DEPUTY
(“WILLIS-NEIGHBOR”); JOHN DOE
OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED THE
TRAFFIC STOP; and CITY OF
BENTONVILLE, ARKANSAS 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed by Paul Shumate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff,
who is not incarcerated, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 	His Complaint (ECF No. 2)
alleges, among other things, that while he was incarcerated in the Benton County Detention Center
(“BCDC”) various Defendants used excessive force against him there and denied him adequate
medical care for the injuries he received from that use of force. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint was
accompanied by a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
4) (hereinafter “TRO Motion”), essentially asking this Court to enter an order requiring the BCDC
defendants to immediately stop engaging in the allegedly unlawful practices that he says were used
against him while he was incarcerated there. 	For the reasons given below, the undersigned
recommends that Plaintiff’s TRO Motion be denied.
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests for injunctive relief.
Federal courts may issue an order for a TRO without first hearing from all parties only if “specific
Case 5:25-cv-05257-TLB Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). By contrast, courts may issue preliminary injunctions only on notice to
the adverse party. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). 	Requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions are
evaluated under the same standard, see Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 F.4th 657, 665 (8th Cir 2022),
which consists of the four so-called “Dataphase factors”: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the
movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will
inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4)
the public interest.” Dataphase Sys., Inv. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en
banc). 	The movant, Plaintiff, has the burden of establishing that injunctive relief is proper.
Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). While no single factor is dispositive,
relief will be denied if irreparable harm is not shown. Id. Here, Plaintiff filed his TRO Motion
prior to the filing of any answer to his Complaint by any Defendant. Accordingly, although it is
styled as a motion for both a TRO and a preliminary injunction, the Court will treat his request for
injunctive relief as a request for a TRO.
Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied for one very simple reason: he cannot show any threat
of irreparable harm to himself in the absence of injunctive relief, because he is no longer
incarcerated. Indeed, Plaintiff had already been released from custody before he filed this lawsuit
and his TRO Motion. 	See ECF No. 2, ¶¶ 92–94. 	His TRO Motion discusses the factor of
irreparable harm but—unsurprisingly under these circumstances—it discusses this factor with
respect to individuals other than himself. 	Plaintiff states that he “does not seek protection for
himself alone—he seeks protection for all medically fragile detainees,” and he argues that if
injunctive relief is not provided then “detainees will continue to face” the practices that he alleges
injured him while he was incarcerated at BCDC. See ECF No. 4¶, ¶ 230–31. But this Dataphase
Case 5:25-cv-05257-TLB Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
factor concerns “the threat of irreparable harm to the movant.” 640 F.2d at 114 (emphasis added).
Likewise, Rule 65 permits issuance of a TRO “only if” the movant shows “that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has not brought this lawsuit
as a class action, and he does not have standing to seek remedies for injuries inflicted on parties
other than himself.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 5th day of January 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05257-TLB Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>