BUSTILLO v. RARDIN et al
Filing
19
ENTRY Discussing Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Bustillo's request for a preliminary injunction [dkt. 5] is denied for the following reasons: First, the defendants have not yet appeared and Bustillo has not shown that he has provided notice to the defendants of his request for an injunction as required by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Next, the relief Bustillo seeks is in the form of a "mandatory injunction" that would change the status quo and order the defendants to perform specific acts. Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883, 892 (7th Cir. 2011). "A mandatory injunction imposes significant burdens on the defendant and requires careful consideration of the intrusiveness o f the ordered act, as well as the difficulties that may be encountered in supervising the enjoined party's compliance with the court's order." Id. Here, granting Bustillo's request for injunctive relief would involve this Court in the management of the prison where Bustillo is confined and would improperly violate the admonition that federal district courts are not to allow themselves to become "enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations." Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2182 (1996)(citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979)). The Court will not order such relief in the circumstances presented here. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/13/2013. Motions terminated: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by FERNANDO BUSTILLO. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.(NMT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
FERNANDO BUSTILLO,
vs.
E. RARDIN, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
Case No. 2:13-cv-192-JMS-WGH
Entry Discussing Motion for Preliminary Injunction
This cause is before the Court on the motion for preliminary injunction of plaintiff
Fernando Bustillo.
Bustillo is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at an institution located within
the Southern District of Indiana. The present action is brought pursuant to the theory recognized
in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), to vindicate his First and Eighth
Amendment rights. The defendant individuals have been served with process, but none have yet
appeared in the action. Bustillo seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from
denying him postage stamps, paper, and grievance forms, from preventing reasonable access to
unit staff, and from housing him with psychologically disturbed inmates.
To prevail on his motion, Bustillo must establish: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) he will suffer irreparable harm which,
absent injunctive relief, outweighs the irreparable harm the respondent will suffer if the
injunction is granted; and (4) the public interest will not be harmed by the injunction. See
Goodman v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. and Prof’l Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir.2005); see also
Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808, 811 (7th Cir.2002); Abbott Labs. v. Mead
Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992).
Bustillo’s request for a preliminary injunction [dkt. 5] is denied for the following
reasons: First, the defendants have not yet appeared and Bustillo has not shown that he has
provided notice to the defendants of his request for an injunction as required by Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Next, the relief Bustillo seeks is in the form of a “mandatory
injunction” that would change the status quo and order the defendants to perform specific acts.
Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883, 892 (7th Cir. 2011). “A mandatory
injunction imposes significant burdens on the defendant and requires careful consideration of the
intrusiveness of the ordered act, as well as the difficulties that may be encountered in supervising
the enjoined party’s compliance with the court's order.” Id. Here, granting Bustillo’s request for
injunctive relief would involve this Court in the management of the prison where Bustillo is
confined and would improperly violate the admonition that federal district courts are not to allow
themselves to become “enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations.” Lewis v. Casey, 116 S.
Ct. 2174, 2182 (1996)(citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979)). The Court will not order
such relief in the circumstances presented here.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
08/13/2013
Date: _________________
Distribution:
Fernando Bustillo
02530-051
Terre Haute United States Penitentiary
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?