IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 06cv01236MSKBNB
ADAM MAYO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and
WILLIAM RANDELL, III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST OFFICER FNU KROGSTEL, in his official capacity;
UNITED STATES FOREST OFFICER FNU LAMPE, in his official capacity;
UNITED STATES FOREST OFFICER FNU BARTON, in his official capacity;
UNITED STATES FOREST OFFICER FNU FREUND, shield # 1662, in his official capacity;
JOHN AND JANE DOE, UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE, in their official capacities;
JOHN AND JANE DOE, UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL
SERVICE, in their official capacities; and
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID WEST, in his official capacity,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (# 2).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) provides that a temporary restraining order may be granted “only
if it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint” that relief
is appropriate. The motion here is not supported by an affidavit, and the Complaint (# 1) is not
verified. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2) requires that the applicant’s attorney certify to the
Court the efforts, if any, that have been made to give notice to the opposing party or that party’s
attorney, and the reasons why such notice should not be required. No such certification is made
here.
Case 1:06-cv-01236-MSK Document 6 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
Mayo et al v. Krogstel et al
Doc. 6
Dockets.Justia.com
Accordingly, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (# 2) is DENIED.
Dated this 28th day of June, 2006
BY THE COURT:
Marcia S. Krie