Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Riddick v. Semple

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

February 22, 2019

JEROME RIDDICK, Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge

         Plaintiff, 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.

         I. Motions filed in Multiple Cases ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 18

         Two 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. 3:16-cv-53(SRU).

         Riddick's 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.

         The 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).

         II. Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 7

         Riddick 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.

         Riddick 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.

         Riddick's 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.

         III. Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction ECF No. 14

         Riddick 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 Program.

         The 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 Cir. 1995).

         Riddick 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.