WILLIAMS v. EVERY JUDGE IN MAINE et al

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 11 MOTION to Extend Time for Filing Appeals MOTION for Injunction MOTION to Remove CR-16-7110 MOTION for Sanctions filed by BRADLEY PAUL WILLIAMS. Objections to R&R due by 10/13/2016. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

BRADLEY PAUL WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
EVERY JUDGE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, )
POLICE OFFICER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)

1:16-cv-00235-DBH

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 11.)
Through the motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin certain individuals from “further police
calls, warrants, arrests, threats, intimidation, harassment, tampering, and violence against him.”
(Id. at 3.) He also requests that the Court determine that any future criminal matters in which he
is involved proceed in federal court rather than state court. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks both a temporary
and a permanent injunction. (Id.)
After review of Plaintiff’s motion and the record, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s
motion.
Discussion
To obtain the immediate injunctive relief he seeks, 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, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the
injunction and the public interest.” 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). “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).
On August 15, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff
thus does not have a pending claim in this Court. To the extent Plaintiff requests an injunction in
anticipation of an appeal from the order dismissing this case, given this Court’s dismissal of the
case, Plaintiff cannot on the claim he filed in this Court satisfy the “likelihood of success”
prerequisite to injunctive relief. Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to injunctive relief in this matter.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief.

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. Section 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district county 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 26th day of September, 2016.

2