Cilla v. Johnson
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 6 Motion for Injunctive Relief and Preventative Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 4/25/2017. (crt,Haik, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-0024
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
Before the court is the petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive and Preventative Relief. Doc. 6.
For reasons provided below, the motion is DENIED.
The petitioner seeks a court order preventing prison authorities from returning him to the
general population of the prisons and forbidding them from revoking good time credits for his
noncompliance. Doc. 6. As grounds for his refusal to return to the general population he cites his
fears that other inmates will learn that he has cooperated with the government “due to his case
being published in the Lexis Nexis Electronic Law library computer which all inmates have access
to.” Id. at 1–2. He also refers to a sealed document in his criminal case which acknowledges his
criminal conviction.1 Id. at 2.
“An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a clear
showing of possible irreparable harm.” Lewis v. S.S. Baun, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976).
Mindful of the fact that the petitioner had filed this sealed document as an attachment in the instant case, we have
already granted him leave to substitute his initials for his name in this matter and to file a redacted copy of the original
petition and attachment, after which time the originals will be placed under seal. Doc. 5. As such, the petitioner’s
request for sealing and redaction of the instant motion are denied as moot – the matter as a whole is redacted to show
only the petitioner’s initials, meaning that no one can search for this matter by the petitioner’s name and learn of his
cooperation through the admissions made in his motion.
A movant for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate each of the following: 1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; 2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will
result in irreparable injury; 3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will
cause to the adverse party; and 4) the injunction will not have an adverse effect on the public
interest. Women's Med. Ctr. of Northwest Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418–20 (5th Cir. 2001).
The petitioner has not made a sufficient showing to warrant injunctive relief in this matter.
We have already made provisions to ensure, to the extent we can, that the sealed documents he
chose to file as unsealed exhibits in this suit may not become public knowledge, and that the
petitioner’s identity is also concealed. A perusal of his criminal case reveals that the documents he
cites remain under seal. See United States v. Cilla, No. 12-cr-20262 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2013). A
search of LexisNexis does reveal petitioner’s possible cooperation in the testimony of his
ineffective assistance claim on his motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Cilla v.
United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28899 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016). However, the statements on
cooperation there are very general and thus insufficient to support the petitioner’s claims of peril.
Therefore the petitioner’s request for injunctive relief is denied.
The instant suit relates to events that occurred while the petitioner was incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institute in Oakdale, Louisiana. The petitioner has since been transferred to
the United States Penitentiary in Coleman, Florida. To the extent petitioner will wish to complain
about any reduction in good time credit he receives for noncompliance with prison authorities, he
must do so through another petition filed under § 2241. This court will not have jurisdiction over
such a petition. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373–74 (5th Cir. 2001). The petitioner should
instead pursue that matter in the appropriate Florida district court.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 25th day of April, 2017.
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?