Lampon-Paz v. Department of Justice

          OPINION AND ORDER

          KEVIN MCNULTY United States District Judge.

         I. Background

         The pro se plaintiff, Manuel Lampon-Paz, has filed a complaint and "emergency request for injunction" (ECF no.l) against the United States Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. The filing was not accompanied by a filing fee; simultaneously herewith, I am signing an order granting the plaintiff in forma pauperis status. A summons has not yet issued, however, and the defendants have not yet answered the complaint.

         The complaint alleges that "[t]he defendants have refused to let my product pass through customs." Mr. Lampon-Paz alleges that he has ordered medications online from a Mexican pharmacy website. He states that he will refer to these medications as "product" because "I don't have a prescription for them." He says he needs them for ailments such as "a broken back, fibromyalgia, joint and muscle pain." The complaint attaches invoices and an email from the Mexican website confirming that the items were ordered and stating that they were shipped as of July 27, 2017.

         The products ordered are

1. Supratest 400 (testosterone enthanate & cipionate)

2. AndroTest 250 mg 10 ml (4/testosterone esters)

3. IGF-1 LR3 1200mcg

         The complaint cites 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law). That is a criminal statute, which does not contain a private right of action; rather than dismiss the claim, I will assume that this pro se plaintiff intended to cite section 242's civil analogue, 18 U.S.C. § 1983, or to assert a Bivens claim.^[1]"Invasion of privacy" may be intended as a constitutional or ordinary tort claim.

         The plaintiff alleges that "[i]t is my belief that the defendants' actions are partially due to my civil lawsuits in different matters."^[2] He demands "that the defendants release my medications and let them be delivered immediately and that future shipments not be stopped."

         II. Discussion

         I interpret the "emergency request" as an application for a temporary restraining order, or possibly a preliminary injunction. An injunction pendente lite requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. See Maldonado v. Houston, 157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1988) (preliminary injunction); Ballas v. Tedesco, 41 F.Supp.2d 531, 537 (D.N.J. 1999) (same factors apply to a temporary restraining order).

         The plaintiffs application does not address these factors, nor does it contain a sworn declaration as to the underlying facts. I overlook these procedural defects and discuss the relevant factors.

         Likelihood ...