ANCTIL v. FITZPATRICK et al
Filing
27
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 26 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by STEVE ANCTIL JR. Objections to R&R due by 6/23/2016. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEVE ANCTIL, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.
JOSEPH FITZPATRICK, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:16-cv-00107-JAW
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
In this action, Plaintiff seeks relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged violations of
his constitutional rights. Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A, I recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint unless Plaintiff
amended his complaint to state an actionable claim. (ECF No. 25.)
On the same day the recommended decision was issued, Plaintiff filed a motion for
injunctive relief.
(Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction, ECF No. 26; Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26-1.) Through his motion and supporting declaration,
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to provide him with greater law library access, to open
his legal mail only in his presence, and to provide him with a reasonable number of private
telephone calls with legal counsel.
After review of Plaintiff’s filings, I recommend that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for
immediate injunctive relief.
DISCUSSION
In his declaration in support of his motion, Plaintiff asserts under the statutory alternative
to the oath that he receives one one-hour session per week to use the satellite law library, which
hour is separate from the hour he receives every day to be outside of his cell. (Declaration ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff also contends that Defendants mishandle his legal mail, which includes the opening of his
legal mail outside of his presence. (Id. ¶¶ 7 – 8.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants record
and monitor his telephone communications with counsel.1 (Id. ¶ 10.)
To obtain emergency injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show “(1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld, (3) a
favorable balance of hardships,2 and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the injunction and the
public interest.”3 Nieves–Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003); Hoffman v.
Sec’y of State of Me., 574 F. Supp. 2d 179, 186 (D. Me. 2008).
Through his submissions, Plaintiff evidently requests both a temporary restraining order
and a preliminary injunction. Generally, the distinction between the two forms of injunctive relief
is that the former can be awarded without notice to the other party and an opportunity to be heard.
Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Paper Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 247, ___ (D.
Me. 2015). A temporary restraining order, therefore, is an even more exceptional remedy than a
preliminary injunction, which is itself “an extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded
1
Plaintiff asserts that the communications concern the instant civil action and a state court civil matter. (Declaration
¶¶ 7, 10.) Because Plaintiff does not identify any pending criminal matter, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is
not implicated by Plaintiff’s allegations. Young v. City of Providence ex rel. Napolitano, 404 F.3d 4, 24 (1st Cir.
2005) (“The Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil cases ….”).
2
Plaintiff must demonstrate that his claimed injury outweighs any harm that granting the injunctive relief would inflict
upon Defendants. Lancor v. Lebanon Hous. Auth., 760 F. 2d 361, 362 (1st Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff must prove that “the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting of the injunction.” Planned
Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir. 1981).
3
2
as of right.” Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st
Cir. 2011) (quoting Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 – 90 (2008)). By rule, a temporary
restraining order requires a clear showing “that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage
will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1).
Regardless of whether notice is provided, “[t]he dramatic and drastic power of injunctive
force may be unleashed only against conditions generating a presently existing actual threat; it
may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future invasion of
rights, be those rights protected by statute or by the common law.” Holiday Inns of Am., Inc. v. B
& B Corp., 409 F.2d 614, 618 (3d Cir. 1969). Moreover, “judicial restraint is especially called for
in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.” Rogers v. Scurr,
676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982). See also 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (requiring that
prospective injunctive relief “extend no further than necessary” and afford only “the least intrusive
means necessary to correct the violation,” and that the court “give substantial weight to any adverse
impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief”).
For the Court to consider the merit of Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order,
Plaintiff first must demonstrate that he would suffer an irreparable loss if Defendants were notified
of his request and provided the opportunity to respond to the motion. Plaintiff has failed to provide
any record evidence that would support such a conclusion. Additionally, a request for injunctive
relief requires the Court to assess whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail on the claim asserted in
the plaintiff’s complaint. Verizon New England, Inc. v. Maine Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 403 F. Supp.
2d 96, 102 (D. Me. 2005). As explained in the recommended decision, Plaintiff has not stated an
actionable claim. Plaintiff, therefore, has not and cannot establish that he has a substantial
3
likelihood of prevailing on a claim he has asserted against Defendants. Plaintiff’s request for
immediate injunctive relief thus fails.
Plaintiff’s motion, however, reinforces the possibility, noted in the recommended decision,
that Plaintiff might have intended to assert a claim based on his concerns about his access to the
law library, the opening of his mail, and his communications with legal counsel. For that reason,
I previously recommended the Court permit Plaintiff another opportunity to amend his complaint
before the Court dismisses the matter. (ECF No. 25.) If Plaintiff amends his complaint to state an
actionable claim, Plaintiff can renew his request for injunctive relief after service of the amended
complaint upon the Defendants.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 26).
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought,
together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served
with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14)
days after the filing of the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de
novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 6th day of June, 2016.
4
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?