GOODWIN v. FORD et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-324-AW/MJF
STATE OF FLORIDA and TOMMY
FORD,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed an emergency motion—which spans less than one
full page—for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Doc. 2. Because
Plaintiff’s motion violates Rule 65 and the Local Rules, and because
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a TRO, the District
Court should deny Plaintiff’s emergency motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action against the State of Florida and
Tommy Ford. Plaintiff alleges that on November 3, 2025, the Bay County
Sheriff seized Plaintiff’s firearms pursuant to a Florida court’s domestic-
Case 5:25-cv-00324-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
violence injunction. Doc. 1 at 1, 7–13. Plaintiff asserts claims under the
Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Failure to Comply with Rule 65 and the Local Rules
When a plaintiff fails to comply with an applicable rule, the District
Court “may strike a pleading, dismiss a claim, enter a default on a claim,
take other appropriate action, or issue an order to show cause why any of
these actions should not be taken.” N.D. Fla. R. 41.1.
Here, Plaintiff’s motion violates both the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida.
1. 	Rule 65
Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district
court may issue a TRO without written or oral notice to the adverse party
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 5:25-cv-00324-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure insofar as he did not indicate what efforts he made to give
notice of his motion or reasons why notice of his motion should not be
required. This alone requires denial of Plaintiff’s motion. 	Ragan v.
Blakely, 2022 WL 635425, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2022); VanDeCruze v.
Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 8:18-CV-1027-T-36MAP, 2018 WL 3391349,
at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2018); see Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.3d 835, 837
(11th Cir. 1989).
2. 	The Local Rules
Plaintiff’s motion also violates the Local Rules: Plaintiff’s motion
does not include a case style. The first page of a document must begin
with the case style. The case style must include the name of the court,
the case number (including the initials of the assigned judges), and the
name of at least one party on each side of the case. N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
5.1(B); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). For this reason too, the District Court
should deny Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.
Case 5:25-cv-00324-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
B. 	Failure to Establish Entitlement to a TRO
A TRO is an extraordinary remedy. Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct.
1942, 1943 (2018); Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24
(2008); Bloedorn v. Grubs, 631 F.3d 1218, 1229 (11th Cir. 2011). TROs
are granted only in exceptional cases. United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d
536, 539 (11th Cir. 1983). The chief function of a TRO is to preserve the
status quo until the merits of the controversy can be fully and fairly
adjudicated. See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)
(discussing preliminary injunctions); Granny Goose Foods Inc. v. Bhd. of
Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (discussing TROs); All Care Nursing
Serv. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989).
To establish entitlement to a TRO, a movant must demonstrate:
(1) a 	substantial 	likelihood 	of 	success 	on 	the 	merits 	of 	the
underlying claim;
(2) a substantial likelihood of suffering irreparable injury if the
TRO is not granted;
(3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs any injury
the nonmovant might suffer from the TRO; and
(4) the TRO would not disserve the public interest.
Case 5:25-cv-00324-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Vital Pharm., Inc. v. Alfieri, 23 F.4th 1282, 1290-
91 (11th Cir. 2022); In re Gateway Radiology Consultants, P.A., 983 F.3d
1239, 1254 (11th Cir. 2020); Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir.
1995) (discussing the requirements for issuing a TRO). The third and
fourth elements merge when, as here, the party opposing the preliminary
injunction is the government. See Swain v. Junior, 958 F.3d 1081, 1091
(11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Failure to establish even one of the first
two factors is fatal to a motion for a TRO. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam); Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d
1332, 1342 (11th Cir. 1994); All Care Nursing Serv. v. Bethesda Mem’l
Hosp., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff’s motion—which spans less than one full page—is devoid
of an analysis of these factors, and the facts, at this juncture have not
been 	sufficiently 	developed 	to 	conclude 	that 	there 	is 	a 	substantial
likelihood that Plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. 	For this
reason, also, the District Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.
C ONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with applicable procedural rules
and failed to establish essential prerequisites for a temporary restraining
Case 5:25-cv-00324-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/03/25 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
order, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District
Court 	DENY 	without 	prejudice 	Plaintiff’s 	Emergency 	Motion 	for 	a
temporary restraining order.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 3rd day of December 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of
the 	date 	of 	the 	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 its
objections upon 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 5:25-cv-00324-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/03/25 Page 6 of 6