Reed (ID 71576) v. Norwood et al

Filing 30

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,
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

Plaintiff

alleges

Correctional

(Doc.
that

Facility

27)

filed

legal

(“LCF”)

on

September

counsel

attempted

to

for

the

pressure

5,

2017.
Lansing

him

into

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[,]

1

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.
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).
“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
marks omitted).

A preliminary injunction is only appropriate

“to prevent existing or presently threatening injuries.

One

will not be granted against something merely feared as liable to
occur

at

some

indefinite

time

in

the

future.”

State

of

Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660, 674
(1931).
The

allegations

Plaintiff

makes

do

not

injury is “certain . . . and not theoretical.”
2

establish

that

See Heideman,

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
future.”

See Connecticut, 282 U.S. at 674.

Furthermore,

a

party

seeking

a

preliminary

injunction

generally must ask for intermediate relief of the same character
as that which may be granted at the conclusion of the underlying
case.
212,

See De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S.
220

(1945).

Mr.

Reed

seeks

compensatory

damages

and

transfer from Lansing Correctional Facility in the underlying
lawsuit, while his motion for injunctive relief seeks release
from custody.

“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.

The order

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.

This

encompasses engaging in settlement negotiations with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do not support a finding of
misconduct on the part of Ms. Price.

3

For

the

reasons

explained

above,

Plaintiff’s

motion

is

denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief (Doc. 27) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 19th day of September, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow______
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

4