Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-0962 (JGP).
May 19, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The plaintiff filed a complaint charging the defendant with breach of contract, a violation of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and discrimination based on race. The complaint was filed on May 13, 2005. On May 17, the plaintiff filed a Motion for A Temporary Restraining Order. The plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of the motion on May 19, 2005. The defendant filed an opposition to the motion on May 17, 2005.
At times the plaintiff refers to the above motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Court treats the motion as one for a temporary restraining order since on May 19, 2005, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from "[i]nterfering with Plaintiff's upcoming May 23, 2005 graduation." Motion. He also asks that the Court restrain the defendant from "[n]ot allowing Plaintiff to proceed as if he had been given an incomplete, in his required graduation course work, thereby enabling him to complete this work, during the summer." Id. The plaintiff has requested a hearing.
After reviewing the complaint and the motion, the Court concludes that a hearing is not necessary. While a party may request a hearing, it is within the discretion of the Court whether such a hearing is necessary. See LCvR 7 (f) related to motions in general, and LCvR 65.1 (a) and (d) relating to motions for temporary retraining orders and motions for preliminary injunction. In order to obtain injunctive relief, the plaintiff must establish that he has a strong case on the merits and that he is likely to prevail, that he will be irreparably injured in the event injunctive relief is not granted, that the issuance of injunctive relief would not harm the other parties and where lies the public interest. See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc. 182 U.S. App. D.C. 220, 223, 559 F.2d 844 (1977) (applying the test for the granting of a stay pending appeal).
Very briefly, it appears that the plaintiff is or was a student at the defendant university where he seeks to earn a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science. He alleges that he missed a required course in CS 195 due to a medical condition and he entered into an agreement with certain professors concerning his Computer Science courses in CS 195 and CS 196. Complaint ¶ 15. He had to comply with certain conditions and if he failed to meet those conditions, he would fail both CS 195 and CS 196. Id. He seeks to have the Court require the university to grant him a degree in Computer Science at the graduation ceremonies on May 23, 2005, but the plaintiff does not state that he met the terms of the alleged agreement and admits that he was in breach of it. Plaintiff's Memorandum at 6. Indeed, he states that "nothing in the original agreement stated that performance was immediate." Complaint ¶ 21(d).
Based upon these claims, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, but his complaint is not verified, and standing alone would not support the granting of a temporary restraining order in any event. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to file an affidavit or affidavits, including his own, in support of the motion. The complaint refers to an agreement he allegedly entered into with certain professors, but the Court has not been provided with a copy of the agreement. It is clear that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he has a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The failure to establish that he has a strong case on the merits is sufficient reason to deny injunctive relief. But the plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable harm. Moreover, allowing him to receive a degree when he has not met the requirements to do so would cause harm to the university and the other students who have met their requirements. Finally, the public interest supports denial of injunctive relief on the facts presented by the plaintiff. The motion must be denied.
Although it is unnecessary for the Court to consider the opposition filed by the defendant, it is interesting to note that attached to the opposition is a declaration by Michael Feldman, Ph.D. a professor in the Department of Computer Science at the university and the academic advisor to the plaintiff. Declaration of Feldman, ¶¶ 1, 2. He states that the plaintiff "has not fulfilled 22 of the 124 required credits for the B.S. degree in Computer Science including the required 2-course (6 credit) Senior Design Project. Id. ¶ 4. Thus, even if the plaintiff did complete the classes in dispute, he still would not be eligible to graduate. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. Finally, he states that the plaintiff "withdrew from all of his Spring classes at The George Washington University and is currently out of status as a student. This is an additional reason why Mr. Habte is not eligible to march at the graduation ceremony." Id. 7.
It is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.