Reed (ID 71576) v. Norwood et al

Filing 25

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 23 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/01/17. Mailed to pro se party Steve V. Reed by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

STEVE V. REED,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.17-3059-SAC-DJW

JOE NORWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

O R D E R
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief from direct retaliation (Doc. 23) filed on
August 23, 2017.

The first page of Plaintiff’s motion is cut

off at the bottom resulting in the omission of some of his
allegations.

The portion of the motion received by the Court

states that legal counsel for the Lansing Correctional Facility
(“LCF”) and EAI members at LCF have threatened Plaintiff in an
attempt to get him to dismiss this action.

Plaintiff does not

further describe the threats or further identify the parties who
made them.
from

any

He requests that the legal counsel be “releas[ed]
further

involvement”

“immediately addressed.”

1

and

that

the

threats

be

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
demonstrate four things: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance
of the equities tip in the movant’s favor; and (4) that the
injunction is in the public interest.
1245,

1251

(10th

Cir.

2010).

Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d

“[A]

showing

of

probable

irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for
the

issuance

of

a

preliminary

injunction.”

Dominion

Video

Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1260
(10th Cir. 2004). Thus, Mr. Reed “must first demonstrate that
such injury is likely before the other requirements for the
issuance of an injunction will be considered.”
Although

the

Court

will

construe

a

Id.

pro

se

litigant's

filings liberally, requests for relief must be supported, at a
minimum, by factual allegations.

See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d

1106, 1110 & n. 3 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating rule of liberal
construction

“applies

to

all

proceedings

involving

a

pro

se

litigant”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B) (requiring requests for a
court order to “state with particularity the grounds for seeking
the order”).
Without specific allegations about the threats made, the
Court

is

unable

to

find

that

Plaintiff

2

is

likely

to

suffer

irreparable harm as required to issue a preliminary injunction.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief (Doc. 23) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 1st day of September, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow______
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

3