ORDER denying 3 Motion for Injunction. The Court finds that: (1) Patel is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claims against the individual Defendants in their¶

Patel v. Texas Tech University et al, No. 5:17-cv-00174-C (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 50 · 2017-12-18 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 50

Filed 12/18/17

Page 1 of 2

PageID 697

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

)
)

RAJIN PATEL,
Plaintiff,
V.

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)

)

CivilActionNo. 5:17-CV-174-C

ORDER
On this day, the Court considered Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed
July 25, 2017, and Defendants' Response in Opposition (and supporting brief), filed
September 1, 20 17. 1 The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction on December 11 , 2017 . The Court has further considered the evidence and testimony
admitted at that hearing, together with Defendants' Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law, filed December 15, 2017, and Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, filed December 17, 2017.
The Court is of the opinion that Defendants' Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law should be ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
A preliminary injunction should issue only if Plaintiff, Raj in Patel, can establish: (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the

1

As explained in the Court' s Order ofNovember 1, 2017, part ofthis case is currently
stayed pending Defendants' interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
however, is brought against only the individual Defendants in their official capacities and this
Court has jurisdiction to proceed with that Motion. See Order, ECF No. 39.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 50

Filed 12/18/17

Page 2 of 2

PageID 698

injunction is not issued; (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any
harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not
disserve the public interest. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 151 (5th Cir. 2015). For the
reasons thoroughly set forth in Defendants' Proposed Findings and Conclusions (adopted as the
Court's findings and conclusions) and in Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court finds that: (1) Patel is not likely to succeed on the
merits of his claims against the individual Defendants in their official capacities; (2) there is no
threat of immediate or irreparable injury to Plaintiff; (3) any alleged injury to Plaintiff is
significantly outweighed by the harm to the Defendants; and (4) the public interest weighs
against granting a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary

j
SO ORDERED this /r9 . . . .day of Decem be

Injunction is DENIED.

2