Cavanaugh v. Hall County Department of Corrections

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 15 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEPHEN CAVANAUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
HALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, RUIZ,
Director, VAN, Assistant Director,
SPAR, Sgt, CASTLEBERRY, Sgt,
CONNELLY, Sgt, and REI, Sgt,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3062

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Filing No. 15), and Defendants’ Brief (Filing No. 26) in opposition to the motion.
Plaintiff filed the underlying Complaint (Filing No. 1) in this case on March 24, 2014.
He alleged he was placed in segregation in retaliation for filing grievances while
housed in the Hall County Jail in Hall County, Nebraska.
In Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction, he asks the court to enjoin state
and county officials from placing him in the custody of Hall County Jail while this
case is pending. He alleges he has matters pending in a criminal case in the Hall
County District Court and, therefore, it is possible that he “will be transferred to his
Hall County detainer and placed in Hall County Jail.” (Filing No. 15 at CM/ECF p.
1.) Plaintiff alleges he fears retaliation and interference with his legal mail by Hall
County officials if he is housed in the Hall County Jail. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.)
The standards set forth in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109
(8th Cir. 1981), apply to Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief. In
Dataphase, the court, sitting en banc, clarified the factors district courts should

consider when determining whether to grant a motion for preliminary injunctive relief:
(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance
between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict
on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on
the merits; and (4) the public interest.
Id. at 113. “No single factor in itself is dispositive; rather, each factor must be
considered to determine whether the balance of equities weighs toward granting the
injunction.” United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998).
“At base, the question is whether the balance of equities so favors the movant that
justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are
determined.” Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113.
In order to demonstrate irreparable harm, Plaintiff must show that “the harm
is certain and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable
relief.” Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed. Comm’ns Comm’n, 109 F.3d 418, 425 (8th Cir. 1996).
The failure to demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm is, standing alone,
sufficient grounds to justify the denial of injunctive relief. Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346
F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003).
Here, the threat of harm is wholly speculative. Plaintiff alleges that if he is
housed in the Hall County Jail in the future, jail officials may retaliate against him
and may interfere with his sending and receiving legal mail. Plaintiff does not
describe the injuries he may face in detail and he does not explain how the harm he
would suffer would be “irreparable.” Moreover, any possibility that he will be
transferred from his present place of confinement to the Hall County Jail before this
case is resolved is entirely speculative at this point.
Accordingly, the court finds the speculative nature of the threatened harm
supports the denial of Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. See S.J.W. v.
2

Lee’s Summit R-7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771, 779 (8th Cir. 2012) (“Speculative harm
does not support a preliminary injunction.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Filing No. 15) is denied.
DATED this 18th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3