Dunahue v. Watson et al
ORDER adopting 36 the partial recommended disposition; and denying 33 plaintiff Reginald Dunahue's motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/19/2017. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:15-CV-00276 BSM
RANDY WATSON, et al.
The partial recommended disposition (“PRD”) submitted by United States Magistrate
Juge Beth Deere [Doc. No. 36], plaintiff Reginald Dunahue’s objections [Doc. No. 37], and
Dunahue’s reply [Doc. No. 38] have been reviewed. After reviewing the record, the PRD
The PRD is adopted for the reasoning provided therein, but also because Dunahue
cannot meet the heavy burden required by his request. His motion for an injunction asks for
“access to the media-news 7 days a week, w/o any restrictions, blocks and stupid conditions.”
Mot. 2, Doc. No. 33. Similarly, his complaints demand that the “Varner Max-news broadcast
system [be] repaired” and that his “AM & FM-radio set” be returned, Compl. at 9–10, Doc.
No. 2, so that he can “watch news, hear news, and read news,” Am. Compl. 2, Doc. No. 6.
In such situations, Dunahue’s burden is particularly heavy because granting the injunction
would not maintain the status quo, but rather change conditions and grant relief as if he had
won a full trial on the merits. Sanborn Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.,
997 F.2d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, Dunahue’s motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 33] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of May 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?