Meeks v. McClung, Civil Action 2:20-cv-00583

• Court: United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
• Writing for the Court: Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:20-cv-00583
• Parties: BYRON MEEKS, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY McCLUNG, et al., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 09 September 2021

BYRON MEEKS, Plaintiff,
v.
BOBBY McCLUNG, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00583

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division

September 9, 2021

PROPOSED FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION

Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is assigned to the Honorable Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge, and it is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 3.) Before this Court is the “Motion for Emergency/Expidited [sic] Relief Manditory [sic] Injunction” filed by Plaintiff Byron Meeks (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 18.) For the reasons explained more fully herein, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This action stems from a years-long, still-ongoing dispute between Plaintiff and various officials employed by the City of Parkersburg, West Virginia (the “City”) about parking for Plaintiff's vehicle repair shop. In fact, this is the second time in as many years that the dispute has been before this Court; on April 23, 2020, this Court dismissed a prior lawsuit Plaintiff filed against some of the same city officials he has named as defendants in this case wherein Plaintiff alleged that the officials harassed him and seized his customers' vehicles from his business. Meeks v. Martin, et al., Civil Action No. 2:19-

1

cv-00846. The instant case was filed just months afterward, on September 8, 2020. (ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff's remaining claims in this action assert Fourth Amendment violations based on the defendants' alleged warrantless searches of his vehicle repair shop's parking area on August 6 and 10, 2020, and Plaintiff's allegedly warrantless arrest on August 10, 2020. (ECF Nos. 16, 21.) Notably, none of the remaining claims involve the seizure of any vehicles from the parking area on those dates or at any other time.

But the motion for injunctive relief represents that on June 9, 2021, the defendants “and their Co-Conspirators arbitrarily confiscated” a number of vehicles from the parking area and requests injunctive relief requiring a nonparty towing company to “Return the Customers['] Personal Property Along with the Money They Have Charged These People” and to “Return the vehicles that were illegally taken from a locked gated off-road parking facility that the Plaintiff owns.” (ECF No. 18 at 2, 4.) He also seeks “an injunction Relief on the City”-which is not a party to this case but employs the defendants-although he does not elaborate on the nature of the requested injunction. (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Emergency/Expidited [sic] Relief Manditory [sic] Injunction” on June 24, 2021. (ECF No. 18.) The defendants timely responded (ECF No. 20), but Plaintiff did not file a reply. As such, the motion is fully briefed and ready for resolution.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction . . . must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that the remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and

2

(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 156-57 (2010) (quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). All four factors must be satisfied in order for the injunction to issue, and the plaintiff seeking the injunction bears the burden to show that each factor is met. Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 988 F.3d 690, 719 (4th Cir. 2021).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to...