Reed (ID 71576) v. Norwood et al
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,
JOE NORWOOD, et al.,
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
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
He requests that the legal counsel be “releas[ed]
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.
Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d
irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for
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.”
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
litigant”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B) (requiring requests for a
court order to “state with particularity the grounds for seeking
Without specific allegations about the threats made, the
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.
This 1st day of September, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow______
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior 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?