Lange V Florida Department Of Law Enforcement Fdle

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Mark Patrick Lange, a pro se plaintiff, was previously convicted in 1995 for criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota, which was allegedly reduced to a misdemeanor and subject to expungement. Lange asserts he no longer needs to register as a sex offender in Minnesota and seeks exemption from Florida's sexual offender registration requirements under Fla. Stat. § 943.0435(11)(b). The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and Lee County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) continue to enforce registration requirements on him. The court denied Lange's motions for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, emergency motion, and motion to shorten time, finding deficiencies including lack of security and insufficient notice to nonmoving parties.

Issues

  • The court evaluates whether plaintiff Mark Lange satisfied all prerequisites for a preliminary injunction under M.D. Fla. R. 6.01(4) and 6.02(a)(2), including providing a precise and verified explanation of required security, attaching supporting documentation such as the alleged expungement order, and giving adequate notice to the nonmoving party.
  • The court assesses whether plaintiff Mark Lange met all requirements for a temporary restraining order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1), specifically providing proper security in an amount the court considers proper and ensuring adequate notice to the FDLE and LCSO before issuing injunctive relief.
  • The court determines if the FDLE and LCSO received sufficient notice and had adequate opportunity to present opposition to the plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief, which is essential before granting preliminary or temporary restraining orders.

Holdings

  • The Court denied Plaintiff Mark Lange's Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing on Emergency Motion and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #36) as consideration of the underlying motions was also denied.
  • The Court denied Plaintiff Mark Lange's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #33) without prejudice due to failure to provide required security, failure to attach supporting papers, and insufficient notice to nonmoving parties who have not had adequate opportunity to respond.
  • The Court denied Plaintiff Mark Lange's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #17) due to deficiencies including failure to provide required security explanation and insufficient notice to nonmoving parties.
  • The Court denied Plaintiff Mark Lange's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #34) due to deficiencies including failure to provide required security explanation and insufficient notice to nonmoving parties.
  • The Court denied Plaintiff Mark Lange's Emergency Motion for Immediate Relief and Enforcement of Statutory Exemption (Doc. #35) because the Court will not issue injunctive relief without the benefit of receiving the nonmovants arguments and alleged facts.

Legal Principles

The court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 standards for interim injunctive relief, requiring proper security, adequate notice to nonmoving parties, and opportunity to present opposition before issuing preliminary injunctive relief. The court finds the plaintiff's motions deficient on multiple grounds including failure to provide required security documentation and insufficient notice to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Lee County Sheriff's Office. The court also cites Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) regarding the purpose of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to protect against irreparable injury and preserve status quo until meaningful decision on merits.

Precedent Name

  • Four Seasons Hotels And Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A.
  • Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp.
  • Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo
  • Dilworth v. Riner

Cited Statute

Florida Statutes

Judge Name

John E. Steele

Passage Text

  • "ORDERED: 1. Lange's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #17) is DENIED. 2. Lange's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #33) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Lange's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #34) is DENIED. 4. Lange's Motion Emergency Motion for Immediate Relief and Enforcement of Statutory Exemption (Doc. #35) is DENIED. 5. Lange's Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing on Emergency Motion and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #36) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 16th day of September 2025."
  • "for a preliminary injunction to issue, the nonmoving party must have notice and an opportunity to present its opposition to the injunction. Four Seasons Hotels And Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1)). Neither nonmoving party has had a meaningful opportunity to present any opposition. The FDLE recently appeared, acknowledged Lange's motions, and requested time to respond to them. The Court finds the FDLE has not had adequate notice because it has not had an adequate opportunity to respond in the mere days since its appearance. As to the LCSO, it has yet to appear and the Court similarly finds it has also not been given sufficient notice."
  • "The purpose of a temporary restraining order, like a preliminary injunction, is to protect against irreparable injury and preserve the status quo until the district court renders a meaningful decision on the merits. Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). They are extraordinary and drastic remedies that should not be granted unless all prerequisites have been met. Id. Those prerequisites have not been met here."