WILLIAMS v. WALDO COUNTY MAINE DEPUTY MERL REED et al

Filing 55

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 41 MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Order MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint filed by BRADLEY PAUL WILLIAMS. Objections to R&R due by 4/18/2017. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRADLEY PAUL WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff
v.
WALDO COUNTY MAINE
DEPUTY MERL REED, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00211-DBH

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENJOIN
In this action, Plaintiff alleges Defendants deprived him of certain constitutional
protections in connection with his arrest on November 4, 2014. According to Plaintiff, he
was unlawfully arrested after he mailed a legal document to a person who accused him of
stalking. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for malicious prosecution.
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to enjoin. (ECF No. 41.)
Through the motion, Plaintiff evidently asks the Court to enjoin Defendants from arresting
him again, or otherwise investigating or prosecuting criminal matters against him.
Following a review of the record, and after consideration of the parties’ written
arguments, I recommend the Court deny the motion to enjoin.
Discussion
When evaluating a request for injunctive relief, courts “must consider (1) the
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm if the injunction
is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions, i.e., the hardship to the nonmovant if

enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the movant if no injunction issues; and (4) the
effect (if any) of the court’s ruling on the public interest.” Ross–Simons of Warwick, Inc.
v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d
11, 12 &n.3 (1st Cir. 1993), and Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st
Cir. 1991)). “The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on the
merits; if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest, the
remaining factors become matters of idle curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v.
SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff previously made a similar request for injunctive relief, which request the
Court denied. (Recommended Decision, ECF No. 32; Order Affirming Recommended
Decision, ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff has presented no record evidence to support a different
analysis or result. As explained in the Court’s prior decision, Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that he is likely to prevail on the merits of his claims. In addition, his requested
relief – that Defendants in essence refrain from performing their responsibilities as law
enforcement officers – would be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
not entitled to the injunctive relief he requests.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to
enjoin. (ECF No. 41.)
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
and 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 4th day of April, 2017.