Blumenthal v. Combs et al

Filing 28

OPINION AND ORDER denying 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 13 Motion to Intervene; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS BLUMENTHAL, III,
Case No. 12-11859
Plaintiff,
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
v.
THOMAS COMBS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE,
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter came before the court on the July 5, 2012 motion for preliminary injunction by
plaintiff Thomas Blumenthal, III; the July 16, 2012 motion to intervene new plaintiffs; and
Defendants’ September 7, 2012 motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(2),
no oral argument was heard.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff Thomas Blumenthal, III, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
“impermissible infringement of familial rights protected by First, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” Compl. at 1. Plaintiff initiated this action
when he was on parole; however, during pendency of the action, Plaintiff was incarcerated due to
an alleged parole violation. Defendants are the individual members of the Michigan Parole Board
and Plaintiff’s parole agent Tara Hamilton.
Plaintiff was incarcerated for production and possession of Child Sexually Abusive Material
and Using a Computer to Commit a Crime. He had a nude photograph of his minor niece on his

computer. Plaintiff also had a criminal history, including a prior conviction for Criminal Sexual
Conduct involving a five- or six-year old.
After he was released on parole March 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to challenge parole
conditions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.8. Condition 1.0 prohibits contact with persons aged 17 and under;
condition 1.1 prohibits Plaintiff from living with anyone aged 17 and under; and condition 1.8
prohibits Plaintiff from possessing children's clothing, toys, games or videos without first obtaining
permission from the field agent. At the time of filing suit, Plaintiff also filed a motion for injunctive
relief, seeking to lift the challenged conditions. Plaintiff's wife and two minor children subsequently
filed a motion to intervene in this matter.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
"The purpose of a preliminary injunction is simply to preserve the status quo." United States
v. Edward Rose & Sons, 384 F.3d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 2004). It is not appropriate to grant a
preliminary injunction that effectively gives the plaintiff the relief he is ultimately seeking in the
litigation. In this case, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction seeks the relief he would achieve
if he prevailed at trial. On this basis alone, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion.
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants assert that the parole board has modified
Plaintiff's conditions of parole, and condition 1.0 has been removed. Plaintiff is allowed to have
supervised contact with his children. Nothing in Plaintiff's response brief disputes the assertion.
Since the filing of Plaintiff's response in October 2012, this action has remained dormant.
Therefore, the court presumes that the issues have been rendered moot by parole conditions that
have been modified since Plaintiff filed his complaint; and the court will grant Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.

2

ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the motion to intervene is DENIED AS MOOT.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge

Date: March 13, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record
on this date, March 13, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3