Reed (ID 71576) v. Norwood et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 27 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/19/17. 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
signing an agreement to dismiss his complaint and tried to cause
his “transfer to an unsafe facility.”
Plaintiff further alleges
that members of the Gangster Disciples were given access to
cellhouse where Plaintiff was housed “in order to possibly cause
harm to the plaintiff if given the opportunity.”
He asks the
Court to “releas[e] legal counsel Sherri L. Price of any further
involvement” and states that “as long as the plaintiff remains
in the custody of the KDOC[,]
plaintiff’s safety remains in
jeopardy through threats.”
From this, the Court infers that
Plaintiff is also requesting release from KDOC custody.
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).
“To constitute irreparable harm, an injury must be certain,
great, actual and not theoretical.”
Heideman v. S. Salt Lake
City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1189 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
A preliminary injunction is only appropriate
“to prevent existing or presently threatening injuries.
will not be granted against something merely feared as liable to
Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660, 674
injury is “certain . . . and not theoretical.”
348 F.3d at 1189.
He has not alleged that injury is more than
“merely feared as liable to occur at some indefinite time in the
See Connecticut, 282 U.S. at 674.
generally must ask for intermediate relief of the same character
as that which may be granted at the conclusion of the underlying
See De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S.
transfer from Lansing Correctional Facility in the underlying
lawsuit, while his motion for injunctive relief seeks release
“In this circuit, a prisoner who challenges the
fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate release
or a shortened period of confinement, must do so through an
application for habeas corpus.”
Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677
F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012).
In addition, Plaintiff has not alleged adequate grounds for
the extreme measure of removing Defendants’ attorney.
for a Martinez report directed Defendants to “consider whether
any action can and should be taken by the institution to resolve
the subject matter of the complaint.”
Doc. 6, p. 8.
encompasses engaging in settlement negotiations with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do not support a finding of
misconduct on the part of Ms. Price.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief (Doc. 27) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 19th 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?