Lynn Henton v. William Stephens, et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-41185 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 04/24/2017 [15-41185]

Download PDF
Case: 15-41185 Document: 00513936752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-41185 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 3, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LYNN HENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Individual capacity; LORIE DAVIS, Professional capacity; HERMAN WESTON, JR.; RICHARD D. WALTON; UNKNOWN MARSHALL; CAPTAIN CARL N. BURSON, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CV-345 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lynn Henton, Texas prisoner # 694606, has filed this interlocutory appeal in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Henton argues that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction as to each of the following claims: (1) the “no-talking” policy; (2) the grooming policy; (3) the conditions of confinement; (4) the access Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-41185 Document: 00513936752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 No. 15-41185 to legal materials and the courts; (5) the indigent mail policy; (6) prisoner “compensation” for work performed; and (7) the physical condition of the correctional officers. We review a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & Western R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005). A movant is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction only if he establishes (1) a “substantial likelihood” that he will succeed on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that he will be irreparably injured if the injunction does not issue, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm resulting from the grant of the injunction, and (4) that the injunction “will not disserve the public interest.” Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The movant carries “‘a heavy burden of persuading the district court that all four elements are satisfied,’” and failure to carry the burden on any one of the elements will result in a denial of injunctive relief. Enterprise Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Henton has not made the showing required for injunctive relief with respect to any of his claims. In addition, Henton appeals the district court denial of his motion for class certification. We decline to exercise our discretion to permit the appeal. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(f). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?