United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR TRO/PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION [ECF Nos. 187, 188, 191, 201]
STEFAN
R. UNDERHILL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ja-Qure
Al-Bukhari, also known as Jerome Riddick, has filed four
motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief. For the
reasons discussed below, the motions are denied.
The
same standard is used to evaluate requests for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. Gilmore v.
Schenectady Cty. Sheriffs, 2018 WL 794579, at *5
(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2018) (citing Local 1814, Int'l
Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping
Ass'n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1228 (2d Cir. 1992)).
Interim injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the
movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of
persuasion.” Grand River Enterprise Six Nations
Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted). To prevail, Al-Bukhari must demonstrate “that
he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v.
Gross, __U.S.__, 135 S.Ct. 2726, 2736 (2015) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The Second Circuit
considers a showing of irreparable harm the most important
requirement for an award of preliminary injunctive relief.
NAACP v. Town of East Haven, 70 F.3d 219, 224 (2d
Cir. 1995).
“[T]he
court's task when granting a preliminary injunction is
generally to restore, and preserve, the status quo ante,
i.e., the situation that existed between the parties
immediately prior to the events that precipitated the
dispute.” Asa v. Pictometry Intern. Corp., 757
F.Supp.2d 238, 243 (W.D.N.Y. 2010); Constitution State
Challenge, Inc. v. Nyemchek, 2001 WL 640417, at *9 (D.
Conn. June 1, 2001) (noting that preliminary injunctive
relief was not needed to preserve status quo);
Transamerica Rental Finance Corp. v. Rental Experts,
790 F.Supp. 378, 381 (D. Conn. 1992) (“It is well
established in this Circuit that the purpose of a preliminary
injunction is to preserve the status quo between two
parties.”). Because Al-Bukhari must demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits of his claims in the
amended complaint to obtain preliminary injunctive relief,
the injunctive relief requested must relate to those
claims. See, e.g., De Beers Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United
States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (preliminary injunction
appropriate to grant intermediate relief of “the same
character as that which may be granted finally, ” but
inappropriate where the injunction “deals with a matter
lying wholly outside of the issues in the suit”);
Torres v. UConn Health, 2017 WL 3713521, at *2 (D.
Conn. Aug. 29, 2017) (preliminary injunctive relief not
warranted because claim in motion was unrelated to underlying
claims in complaint).
In his
first motion, ECF No. 187, entitled “Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, ” Al-Bukhari asks the
Court to order the defendants to provide him medical and
mental health treatment for incidents of head banging
occurring in June 2018. The defendants did not respond to
that motion.
In his
second motion, ECF No. 188, entitled “Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction,
” Al-Bukhari asks the Court to ensure he be permitted
to retain the same amount of legal property that he now has
in his cell in Northern Correctional Institution when he is
transferred to MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution.
The defendants contend that, because Al-Bukhari filed this
motion before he was transferred, he cannot demonstrate that
he will suffer irreparable harm should the motion be denied.
In the
third motion, ECF No. 191, entitled “Motion for TRO /
Preliminary Injunction, ” Al-Bukhari states that
between 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on August 8, 2018, he banged
his head on the wall and steel bed frame causing injuries to
his face and head including bleeding and swelling. He claims
to have symptoms of concussion including brief periods of
dizziness and confusion. Al-Bukhari states that correctional
staff observed him and did not intercede to protect him from
self-harm. Al-Bukhari wrote his motion the same evening
seeking an order that he be examined by medical and mental
health staff and that his injuries be photographed.
Al-Bukhari did not submit the motion to the court until
August 31, 2018, nearly a month later. The defendants object
to the motion as moot, noting that Al-Bukhari has been seen
in the medical unit for his injuries.
Al-Bukhari's
fourth motion, ECF No. 201, is entitled “Motion for
Temporary / Preliminary Injunction for the Plaintiff to be
Given All Legal Materials in Association to and with This
Case so that the Plaintiff Can Attempt Proper Litigation to
this Case and/or Other Appropriate Court Order for this
Case.” He seeks an order that he be given all legal
materials relating to this case including his case file,
legal notes, copies of motions, pertinent records, books and
other legal materials. In support of his motion, Al-Bukhari
alleges that shortly after his transfer to Northern
Correctional Institution in November 2018, he was placed in
segregation following an incident with correctional staff. He
contends that correctional staff are telling him that they do
not remember where they put his property after they packed it
following the incident. The defendants contend that
Al-Bukhari's legal property has been returned and the
motion may be denied as moot.
On
April 11, 2018, the Court entered an Order, ECF No. 179,
clarifying what claims would be considered in
Al-Bukhari's six pending cases. The Court stated that the
only claims in this case are Al-Bukhari's claims
regarding the use of restraints and/or deployment of a
chemical agent on four occasions, December 13, 2015, November
19, 2015, March 19, 2016, and January 4-5, 2017. The Court
stated that all other claims, including claims for medical or
mental health treatment would be considered in one of his
other cases. In addition, on April 18, 2018, the Court
specifically informed Al-Bukhari that “requests for
restraining orders and other injunctive relief must relate to
the allegations of, or the relief requested in the underlying
complaint.” ECF No. 181 at 2-3.
Two of
Al-Bukhari's motions seek medical and mental health
treatment. Because the relief requested is unrelated to the
claims in this case, the motions, ECF Nos. 187 & 191, are
denied. See De Beers Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United
States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (preliminary injunction
appropriate to grant intermediate relief of “the same
character as that which relief may be granted finally,
” but inappropriate where the injunction “deals
with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the
suit.”); Oliphant v. Villano, 2010 WL 5069879,
at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 3, 2010) (denying request for
preliminary injunctive relief regarding forced medication
because motion concerned persons who were not defendants and
issues unrelated to claims in amended complaint). To the
extent that the motion seeks a mental health examination,
Al-Bukhari has not shown that a request for an examination
would not be granted. The motion is denied without prejudice.
The
other two motions seek to ensure access to legal papers
required to prosecute this case. One motion sought to retain
the same materials when Al-Bukhari was transferred to
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution. Because the
motion was filed before the transfer, Al-Bukhari failed to
show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the motion were
denied; the motion sought to address an issue that may never
arise. The motion, ECF No. 188, is denied.
The
final motion sought return of legal documents packed up when
Al-Bukhari was confined on four-point restraints. In
response, the defendants state that the materials were
returned. As Al-Bukhari did not filed a reply memorandum
denying the return of his legal materials. The motion is
denied as moot.
In
conclusion, Al-Bukhari's Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order [ECF No. 187], Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction [ECF
No. 188], Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction
[ECF No. 191], and Motion for
Temporary/Preliminary Injunction for the Plaintiff to be
Given All Legal Materials in Association to and with this
Case so that the Plaintiff Can Attempt Proper Litigation to
this Case and/or Other Appropriate Court Order in this Case
[ECF No. 201] are DENIED.
SO
...