From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benoit v. Gardner

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
May 20, 1965
345 F.2d 792 (1st Cir. 1965)

Opinion

Misc. No. 143.

May 20, 1965.

William C. Madden, Boston, Mass., for appellant on application for temporary restraining order.

Calvin P. Bartlett, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Donald N. Sweeney, Boston, Mass., for appellees on memorandum in opposition to the application.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY, Senior Circuit Judge.

By designation.


The appellant, dissatisfied by the denial, by a single district judge, of his demand for a three-judge court to declare a state statute unconstitutional, 28 U.S.C. § 2281, which demand was denied on the ground that the complaint is frivolous on its face, appeals from that order and from the court's dismissal of the complaint. As a matter of procedure both the district court and the plaintiff have acted correctly. Bailey v. Patterson, 1962, 369 U.S. 31, 33, 82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 512; Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 1962, 370 U.S. 713, 715-716, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794. The plaintiff, in addition, asks for "a temporary restraining order until final decision of this court." Passing the technicality that plaintiff is really seeking a preliminary injunction, and the more important matter that he has not satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, we will assume that for preservation of our jurisdiction we may grant an injunction. Cf. Greene v. Fair, 5 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 200. But, as the cited case points out, the plaintiff's burden is something much heavier than the mere showing that the district court erred in believing his complaint frivolous. There must, at the least, be a strong showing of a likelihood of success and of irreparable harm.

The district court took pains to point out with considerable specificity, the deficiencies in the plaintiff's position. In this court plaintiff does not even favor us, any more than apparently he did the district court, with a brief. It is a rare case in which one may obtain a preliminary injunction for the asking, particularly pending appeal. This is far from such a case.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Benoit v. Gardner

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
May 20, 1965
345 F.2d 792 (1st Cir. 1965)
Case details for

Benoit v. Gardner

Case Details

Full title:Leo F. BENOIT, Appellant, v. Alfred GARDNER et al., Appellees

Court:United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: May 20, 1965

Citations

345 F.2d 792 (1st Cir. 1965)

Citing Cases

Cherry v. Postmaster General

3. There is a likelihood of irreparable damage. (See Benoit v. Gardner, (1st Cir., 1965), 345 F.2d 792; 351…

Sola v. Sanchez Vilella

Clearly, when a single judge dismisses a suit for an injunction, the state's interests are not infringed, and…