Wright v. Wells Fargo Bank

Paul Wright, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Education, Defendants.

C. A. No. 6:22-cv-00261-HMH-KFM

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

February 1, 2022

REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Kevin F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (doc. 5). The plaintiff is a non-prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.

The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on January 27, 2022 (doc. 1). With his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an injunction and TRO (doc. 5). In the motion, the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to an injunction and/or TRO to prevent the Secretary of Education from resuming collection on a parent loan taken out by the plaintiff's wife (docs. 5; 1 at 5). The plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief as outlined in his complaint (doc. 5 (citing doc. 1 at 5)).

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or TRO must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res Def. Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds by 559 U.S 1089 (2010), reinstated in relevant part on remand by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345-46. Similarly, he must make a clear showing that he is likely to be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-23; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347. Only then may the court consider whether the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor. See Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 346-47. Finally, the court must pay particular regard to the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).

The plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction or TRO in this matter. As an initial matter, the plaintiff may not represent his wife in this action and pursue claims regarding a parent loan taken out by Mrs. Wright. See Myers v. Loudon Cnty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that although an individual has the right to represent himself/herself by statute-28 U.S.C. § 1654-that right does not “create a coordinate right to litigate for others”). The plaintiff cannot circumvent the statute by alleging that he has agreed to indemnify his wife for the parent loan; indeed, even a power of attorney is not sufficient to allow a pro se party to represent another party's interest in federal court. See Sanders v. Warden of Allendale Corr. Inst., C/A No. 2:17-cv-01819-HMH-MGB, at doc. 48 p.3 n.1 (D.S.C. February 23, 2018) (collecting cases recognizing that a pro se party may not represent another pro se party even pursuant to a power of attorney) (internal citations omitted).

Moreover, in addition to the vague and conclusory nature of the plaintiff's allegations in his complaint, it also appears that the plaintiff's claims may be barred in this action because they were fully litigated in the foreclosure action. Greenville County Public Index, https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Greenville/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (enter the plaintiff's name and 2012CP2305587) (last visited February 1, 2022). Further, the fact that the Secretary of Education (or some unknown entity) will resume collection of the parent loan on February 1, 2022, does not make a clear showing of irreparable harm to justify injunctive relief. Indeed, the plaintiff has not substantiated his allegations against any of the defendants to prove that injunctive relief (in the form of a preliminary injunction or TRO) is required in this matter. See S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund v. Andino, 493 F.Supp.3d 460, 465-66 (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 2020) (noting that the “party seeking [a preliminary injunction or TRO] must prove [its] own case and adduce the requisite proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of the conditions and circumstances upon which he bases the right to and necessity for injunctive relief” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 1980)). Here, as outlined above, the plaintiff's complaint does not meet the high standard required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction or TRO. As such, his motion should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and a TRO (doc. 5) should be denied. The plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and...