United States District Court, D. Connecticut
R. Underhill United States District Judge
Jerome Riddick, has filed six motions for emergency or
preliminary injunctive relief, a motion for declaratory
ruling, a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion for
extension of time, and a motion to amend. The court considers
those ten motions below.
Motions filed in Multiple Cases ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12,
motions seeking emergency orders for preliminary injunctive
relief, ECF Nos. 10 and 11, the motion for extension of time,
ECF No. 18, and the motion for appointment of counsel, ECF
No. 12, include multiple case numbers. Riddick filed these
same motions in six cases. The court has considered all four
motions in Al-Bukhari a/k/a Riddick v. Department of
Correction, No. 3:16-cv-53(SRU). The court denied the
two motions for emergency order on September 21, 2018, in ECF
No. 193. The court noted that the subject of the motions, an
order to prevent the defendants from limiting his ability to
communicate with Inmates' Legal Aid Program personnel,
was not an appropriate topic for a request for emergency
relief. The court denied the motions without prejudice to
refiling in proper form. Riddick did not refile the motions.
Motions for Emergency Order, ECF Nos. 10 and 11, are denied
for the reasons stated in the prior ruling in No.
motion for extension of time seeks additional time to reply
to the defendants' response to motion for emergency
order, ECF No. 11. Because that motion has been denied
without a response, the motion for extension of time is
denied as moot.
court denied the identical motion for appointment of counsel
in No. 3:16-cv-53, at ECF No. 208. The court noted that
Riddick sought appointment of counsel in several cases that
were at different stages of litigation. He failed to consider
the different stages and failed to address why he was unable
to litigate on his own. Riddick's motion for appointment
of counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied for the reasons stated in
the prior ruling in No. 2:16-cv-53(SRU).
Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 7
asks the Court to order the defendants show cause why a
temporary restraining order should not issue to preserve a
notebook that was confiscated on December 8, 2017. Riddick
states that, in addition to containing evidence used support
of a disciplinary charge, the notebook contains addresses and
telephone numbers of Riddick's loved ones and other
personal information. The court construes this motion as a
motion for preservation of evidence.
alleges that the notebook was confiscated in December 2017.
Although Riddick states that the defendants have refused to
return the notebook because it is evidence, he does not
indicate that he made any request to the defendants to
preserve the notebook and does not indicate whether the
notebook was in the defendants' possession several months
later when he drafted this motion.
motion is granted to the extent that, if the defendants have
Riddick's notebook, they are directed to preserve it
pending resolution of this case.
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction ECF No.
seeks an injunction ordering the defendants to credit time he
spent in Administrative Segregation and Punitive Segregation
to the time he must remain in the Security Risk Group
same standard is used to evaluate requests for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. 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, Riddick 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
argues that he is suffering irreparable harm as a result of
prolonged confinement in Phase 1 of the Security Risk Group
Program. In support of his motion, Riddick cites cases
holding that, for purposes of analyzing a due process claim,
consecutive periods of confinement in restrictive housing
must be aggregated when considering whether the inmate was
subjected to atypical ...