GUILLE v. JOHNSON et al

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 70 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 01/23/2020. (jdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ADRIAN GUILLE,
Civil Action No.:
3:18-cv- 01472-PGS-ZNQ

Plaintff
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEVEN JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). (ECF No. 70). This Court heard oral argument on January
21, 2020. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion is denied.
I.
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate: (I) a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury if the requested relief is not
granted; (3) the granting of preliminary injunction will not result in greater harm to the non-moving
party; and (4) the public interest weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Reilly v. City of
Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017); GJJM Enters., LLC v. City ofAil. City, 293 F. Supp.
3d 509, 517 (D.N.J. 2017).

The Third Circuit has explained that “a movant for preliminary

equitable relief must meet the threshold for the first two ‘most critical’ factors: it must demonstrate
that it can win on the merits (which requires a showing significantly better than negligible but not
necessarily more likely than not) and that it is more likely than not to suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief.” Reilly, 858 F.3d at 179. These two factors serve as a “gateway”
for the remaining two factors. Id.

II.
By way of background, on July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Adrian Guille, an inmate at New Jersey
State Prison (NJSP), filed his first motion for a preliminary injunction in which he sought an
immediate transfer out of NJSP. (ECF No. 35-1, at 6-7). On September 9, 2019, a hearing was
held. At the hearing, the Defendant, Department of Corrections, presented various exhibits and
testimony from three witnesses.

The exhibits included Plaintiffs medical records, Plaintiffs

disciplinary records, video of a routine August 5, 2019 inspection of Plaintiffs cell, and
photographs of numerous weapons that Plaintiff had engineered into sharp objects and that
corrections officers recovered from his cell. Major Craig Sears testified regarding Plaintiffs
history and habit of making weapons, and the various additional security measures that this
conduct necessitates.

David Richards, Associate Administrator of New Jersey State Prison,

testified that the Prison is the only facility in New Jersey capable of housing Plaintiff given his
maximum-security custody status.

As a result, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion for a

preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 53). One of my findings was
that Plaintiffs testimony lacked credibility.
In this motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff asserts several arguments; but one
argument he alleges is that he “was severely beaten by several officers who took turns beating
him.” (ECF 70, at 3). In response, the Defendants submitted reports that document the incident,
which are entirely different than Plaintiffs version of events. Evidently, Guille was being escorted
to a shower area. As several officers were applying handcuffs, Guille slashed the left side of
Officer Bennett’s face with a weapon that was later recovered from the floor. (ECF 74-1, pp. 681,
690, 713). Officer Bennett was treated for the wound (10 stitches) and a fractured left wrist.
Obviously, the Corrections Officers used force to regain control. Here, as in the first motion for

2

an injunction, there is a dispute as to the facts. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success
on the merits because of these factual disputes.
III.
As noted above, the only relief Plaintiff seeks is to require the Department of Corrections
to transfer him to another prison facility. Plaintiff believes that such a transfer is feasible because
he was previously relocated from a prison in Montana to New Jersey’.
In this case, Plaintiff is not entitled to incarceration in any particular prison within the State
of New Jersey, let alone one outside of New Jersey, because it is well-established that an inmate
does not have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in a prison transfer, or that he or she will
be incarcerated in a particular prison.

See Ohm v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983);

Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976); Velasquez v. Diguglielmo, 516 F. App’x 91, 97
(3d Cir. 2013); Ball v. Beard, 396 F. App’x 826, 827 (3d Cir. 2010). “Just as an inmate has no
justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison within a State, he has
no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular State.” Ohm, 461 U.S. at
245. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to be transferred to another prison is denied.
An injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is granted rarely. See Ferring Pharms., Inc.
v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2014). Here, where the facts are in dispute
and the law is against the imposition of such a remedy, the injunction is denied.
ORDER
This matter, having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 70), and the Court having carefully reviewed and

At the September 9, 2019 hearing, the Department of Corrections provided credible testimony
on this subject.
3

taken into consideration the submissions of the parties, as well as the arguments and exhibits
therein presented, and for good cause shown, and for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS on this 23’’ day of January, 2020,
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 70) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to a mail a copy
of this order to Plaintiff Adrian Guille.

PLfr
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

4