United States District Court, D. New Jersey
OPINION AND ORDER
MCNULTY United States District Judge.
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.
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,
products ordered are
1. Supratest 400 (testosterone enthanate & cipionate)
2. AndroTest 250 mg 10 ml (4/testosterone esters)
3. IGF-1 LR3 1200mcg
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."Invasion of privacy" may be
intended as a constitutional or ordinary tort claim.
plaintiff alleges that "[i]t is my belief that the
defendants' actions are partially due to my civil
lawsuits in different matters." He demands "that the
defendants release my medications and let them be delivered
immediately and that future shipments not be stopped."
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
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