Five years ago, The Saga of Team Kimberlin had taken a decisive turn away from The
Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s version of the narrative after his loss in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial. That was the first of many LOLsuit he would lose over the next couple of years. The TKPOTD from five years ago today dealt with TDPK’s futile attempt to get a preliminary injunction against several of my codefendants and me in the RICO Madness LOLsuit.
* * * * *
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is so disturbed and so desperately injured by the terrible things that Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, Lynn Thomas, and I are publishing about him that he has gone on vacation to Hawaii when his motion for a preliminary injunction against us in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness is due to Judge Hazel on the 28th.
The judge has imposed some specific limits on what TDPK can file.
First, Plaintiff’s motion must be limited to the specific defendants identified in his request i.e., defendants Walker, Hoge, McCain, Thomas, and Akbar. …
Second, Plaintiff’s motion must be limited to specific conduct that has occurred since the filing of his SAC on June 24, 2014 and must describe with sufficient detail the exact harm caused by each specific defendant and the irreparable harm sought to be prevented by way of immediate injunctive relief.
Third, Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying memorandum may not exceed fifteen (15) pages, double spaced. See ECF No. 97 at 3. Plaintiff must file his motion by August 28, 2014. …
Fourth, Plaintiff’s motion must strictly comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, including the requirements for signatures and other identifying information contained in Rule 11(a), as well as the requirements of 11(b). Failure to comply with Rule 11(b) could result in sanctions issued by the Court sua sponte. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3).
Perhaps, TDPK has figured out that he can’t come up with anything that can be filed within those limitations. We’ll see. Meanwhile, Judge Hazel noted when TDPK asked for more time to file his motion that
[a] preliminary injunction is either needed or it is not. If a preliminary injunction is needed, as Plaintiff contends …, it ought to be pursued with the degree of diligence and urgency for which it was intended to serve i.e. the prevention of irreparable harm. Because Plaintiff’s proposed “wait-and-see” approach is antithetical to that purpose, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request. Plaintiff must file his Motion for Preliminary Injunction no later than August 28, 2014 and in strict accordance with the requirements set forth in the Court’s July 28, 2014 Letter Order, or notify the Court that he is withdrawing his request for leave to file the motion.
* * * * *
I suppose that Kimberlin would have found a way to file his motion for a preliminary injunction if he had wanted it badly enough. I didn’t think he would file, and everything proceeded as I had foreseen.