HOKAMA v. DAVIS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
STEPHANIE HOKAMA,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv2612/TKW/ZCB
TONYA DAVIS,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This pro se civil rights case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction”
(Doc. 5) and “Motion to Suppress and Declare Unconstitutional the
Warrantless Seizure of a Minor Child”1 (Doc. 7). 	For the reasons below,
Plaintiff’s motions should be denied.
To receive a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction,
a movant must show that: (1) there is a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) an irreparable injury will be suffered if the injunction
is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any
1 Based on a review of this motion, the Court construes it as a motion for
preliminary injunction.
Case 3:25-cv-02612-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 3

2
injury the proposed injunction might cause the opposing party; and (4)
the injunction would not disserve the public interest. 	In re Gateway
Radiology Consultants, P.A., 983 F.3d 1239, 1254 (11th Cir. 2020). 	“A
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be
granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion
as to the four requisites.” All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l
Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989). 	Plaintiff has not met
that burden here.
The Court issued a separate order on today’s date discussing the
reasons why Plaintiff’s factual allegations fail to state a plausible claim
for relief against any Defendant.2 	At the conclusion of the order, the
Court directed Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint that cured
the pleading deficiencies or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 	Because
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against any Defendant, she has
failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of
her claims. 	For this reason, she is neither entitled to a temporary
restraining order nor a preliminary injunction.
2 The Court has a statutory duty to screen Plaintiff’s complaint because
she is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Case 3:25-cv-02612-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s
“Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction” 	(Doc. 	5) 	and 	“Motion 	to 	Suppress 	and 	Declare
Unconstitutional the Warrantless Seizure of a Minor Child” (Doc. 7), be
DENIED.
At Pensacola, Florida this 23rd day of December 2025.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02612-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 3