Phelan v. Sullivan et al
Filing
39
DECISION & ORDER: that pltf's 30 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED; and the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 5/23/2011. (see)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KENNETH J. PHELAN,
Plaintiff,
5:10-CV-0724
(DNH/ATB)
v.
CHUCK SULLIVAN, N.Y.S.P. Senior Investigator;
*1MICHAEL REINOEHL2; *ERIC LEONARD; *ANN
KOSTECKI; *JIM CONWAY; MATTHEW
RENNERMAN, N.Y.S.P. Officer with the rank of
Major; JOHN P. MELVILLE, Acting Superintendent of
N.Y.S.P. Police Dept.; and *NICK GEORGEADIS,
Each Individually and in their Official Capacity,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
KENNETH J. PHELAN
09-A-1183
Plaintiff, pro se
Great Meadow Correctional Facility
Box 51
Comstock, NY 12821
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for Defendants
ROGER W. KINSEY, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff Kenneth J. Phelan moved for a temporary restraining order and
1
2
Each sued as N.Y.S.P. Investigator.
According to the affidavit filed by this defendant, his last nam ed is spelled "Reinoehl." See Dkt.
No. 33-1 at 1. The Clerk is directed to revise the docket accordingly.
preliminary injunction. Defendants opposed.
At issue in this civil rights action are plaintiff's claims against the defendants for
excessive force and false arrest. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on
September 28, 2010. Dkt. No. 21.3
II.
Discussion
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy that should not be granted
as a routine matter." Patton v. Dole, 806 F.2d 24, 28 (2d Cir. 1986). In most cases, to
warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction, a movant must show (a) irreparable
harm and (b) either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim or (2)
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits, and a balance of hardships tipping
decidedly in favor of the moving party. D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 465
F.3d 503, 510 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). "The purpose of issuing a preliminary
injunction is to 'preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has
an opportunity to rule on the . . . merits.'" Candelaria v. Baker, No. 00-CV-0912E, 2006
WL 618576, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2006) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d
470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)). When, however, the moving party seeks a
"mandatory injunction that alters the status quo by commanding a positive act," the
standard is higher. Id. "[I]n addition to demonstrating irreparable harm, [t]he moving
party must make a clear or substantial showing of a likelihood of success on the
merits." Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotations omitted).
3
As provided in the Mandatory Pretrial and Discovery Order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew
T. Baxter, the discovery com pletion date is July 5, 2011; dispositive m otions are to be filed no later than
October 3, 2011. See Dkt. No. 29.
-2-
The same standards govern consideration of an application for a temporary restraining
order. Local 1814 Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. N.Y. Shipping Ass'n Inc., 965 F.2d
1224, 1228 (2d Cir. 1992).
"The showing of irreparable harm is the 'single most important prerequisite for
the issuance of a preliminary injunction.'" Brown v. Middaugh, No. 96-CV-1097, 1998
WL 566791 at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 1998) (Munson, S.J.) (citations omitted).
Speculative, remote or future injury is not the province of injunctive relief. Los Angeles
v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111-12 (1983). "Irreparable harm must be shown to be
imminent, not remote or speculative, and the injury must be such that it cannot be fully
remedied by monetary damages." Roucchio v. LeFevre, 850 F. Supp. 143, 144
(N.D.N.Y. 1994) (McAvoy, C.J.) (adopting Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
that denied inmate's request for injunctive relief).
"To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must
establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving
rise to the complaint." McKinnon v. Tresman, No. 302CV2305, 2004 WL 78091, at *1
(D. Conn. 2004) (citing Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (denying the inmate plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction when the inmate's complaint alleged denial of adequate medical
treatment and his motion for preliminary injunction sought relief for alleged retaliation
based on filing the instant lawsuit)); see also Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Trans World
Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir.1997) ("[A] preliminary injunction may never issue to
prevent an injury or harm which not even the moving party contends was caused by the
wrong claimed in the underlying action."). Candelaria, 2006 WL 618576, at *3. In other
words, the relief that a plaintiff seeks by way of injunction must relate to the allegations
-3-
contained in the underlying complaint. See Allen v. Brown, No. 96-CV-1599, 1998 WL
214418, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1998) (Pooler, J.) (adopting a magistrate judge's
recommendation that the court deny a request for injunctive relief because the
allegations in the application were unrelated to claims asserted in the complaint and,
thus, the plaintiff had "failed to establish either a likelihood of succeeding on the merits
of his underlying claim, or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of such
claim and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward" the plaintiff (citations
omitted)). In addition, except in limited circumstances not relevant here, a court may
not order injunctive relief as to non-parties to an action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)
("[e]very order granting an injunction . . . binds only . . . the parties . . . ."); United States
v. Regan, 858 F.2d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 1988); Slacks v. Gray, No. 9:07-CV-0510, 2008
WL 2522075, at *1 n. 1 (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2008) (Mordue, C.J.).
Plaintiff seeks an order restraining defendants Sullivan and Reinoehl from
contacting him, directly or indirectly, and further restraining them from filing "any
charges in criminal court or otherwise or contact through district attorney or assistan[t]
district attorney." Dkt. No. 30 at 4.4 In his supporting affidavit, plaintiff states that he
believes defendants are trying to "blackmail me into dropping my lawsuit or face false
criminal charges. Defendants are also harassing my family." Id. at 5. Plaintiff
complains that Sullivan and Reinoehl traveled to his facility for the allegedly improper
purpose of threatening him with false criminal charges unless he dropped this lawsuit.5
4
Plaintiff's m otion was signed by plaintiff and notarized on Septem ber 26, 2010, in Seneca
County, at which tim e plaintiff was confined in Auburn Correctional Facility. The m otion was redated and
signed on February 15, 2011, and received by the Clerk of the Court for filing on March 7, 2011.
5
Plaintiff states that he refused to m eet with defendants. Dkt. No. 30 at 11.
-4-
Plaintiff also claims that "[d]efendants have already retaliated against me by having a
correctional officer write me up with false charges and have suffered irreparable harm."
Id. at 5-6. According to plaintiff, defendants are also "harassing my family to pressure
me into dropping the lawsuit." Id. at 6. Plaintiff claims that defendants have subjected
him to false arrest on one occasion and are likely to do so again unless plaintiff
accedes to their threats and discontinues this action. Id. at 13.
Defendants have responded in opposition to plaintiff's motion, urging its denial.
Dkt. No. 33. As set forth in their Memorandum of Law, defendants contend that plaintiff
has failed to make the required showing for the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief.
Defendants further argue that well-established principles of federal court abstention
from ongoing state criminal proceedings warrant denial of plaintiff's motion. See Dkt.
No. 33 at 4-10.
Defendants have submitted an affidavit from defendant N.Y.S.P. Investigator
Michael Reinoehl. Dkt. No. 33-1. According to Investigator Reinoehl, plaintiff mailed a
letter to him dated April 13, 2010, in which plaintiff "raged" against defendants and the
New York State Police in general, and made what appeared to be specific threats
against defendant N.Y.S.P. Investigator Sullivan and his family. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.6
Investigator Reinoehl states that he turned the letter over to the State Police for
investigation. Id. at ¶ 8.7 Investigator Reinoehl states that upon information and belief,
the matter was investigated by the Bureau of Investigation ("BCI") unit assigned to the
6
A copy of plaintiff's letter is attached as exhibit A to Reinhoehl's Affidavit. Dkt. No. 33-1 at 4-5.
7
Defendants Sullivan, Kostecki, Conway, Rennerm an, and Reinoehl played no part in the
investigation surrounding plaintiff's letter. Id. at ¶ 10.
-5-
Auburn area. Id. at ¶ 9.8 After turning plaintiff's letter over to the BCI, Investigator
Reinoehl's only involvement in the case was as a witness before the grand jury
convened in Cayuga County. Id. at ¶ 11.9 Defendants have not had contact with
plaintiff's family for more than a year; Investigator Reinoehl states that his last contact
with the family was by telephone, in response to an inquiry from plaintiff's father. Id. at
¶¶16-18.
Plaintiff's motion papers were thoroughly reviewed and the claims asserted
therein were considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as a pro se litigant.
Based upon that review, plaintiff has failed to establish either of the elements required
for the granting of injunctive relief, and therefore his motion will be denied.
"The Second Circuit has defined 'irreparable harm' as 'certain and imminent
harm for which a monetary award does not adequately compensate,' noting that 'only
harm shown to be non-compensable in terms of money damages provides the basis for
awarding injunctive relief.'" Perri, 2008 WL 2944642, at * 2 (citing Wisdom Imp. Sales
Co. v. Labatt Brewing Co., 339 F.3d 101, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2003)); see also Kamerling v.
Massanari, 295 F.3d 206, 214 (2d Cir. 2002) ("To establish irreparable harm, a party
seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show that there is a continuing harm which
cannot be adequately redressed by final relief on the merits and for which money
damages cannot provide adequate compensation." (internal quotation omitted)).
Speculative, remote or future injury is not the province of injunctive relief. Los Angeles
8
Plaintiff was confined at Auburn Correctional Facility at that tim e.
9
Investigator Reinoehl further states upon inform ation and belief that plaintiff was indicted on two
counts of m aking terrorist threats, and that his case was pending in Cayuga County as of March 30, 2011.
Id. at ¶ ¶ 12-15.
-6-
v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111-12 (1983); see also Hooks v. Howard, No. 9:07-CV-0724,
2008 WL 2705371, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 3, 2008) (McAvoy, Sr. J.) ("Irreparable harm
must be shown to be imminent, not remote or speculative, and the injury must be such
that it cannot be fully remedied by monetary damages."); Roucchio v. LeFevre, 850 F.
Supp. 143, 144 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (McAvoy, C.J.) (same).
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of his filing this lawsuit, he has experienced
retaliation and harassment from the defendants. Construed liberally, plaintiff claims
that he has been subjected to an unwarranted attempt by defendants to interview him
at his correctional facility, threatened with unfounded criminal charges, his family has
been harassed, and a false misbehavior report was issued against him by an
unidentified correctional officer who is not a party to this action. These allegations are
directed in conclusory fashion against the "defendants" and are not supported by any
facts whatsoever. Indeed, inasmuch as plaintiff states that he refused to meet with
"defendants" at Auburn, he has not identified a single occasion on which he has even
had contact with them subsequent to the criminal proceedings challenged herein. To
the extent that criminal charges were brought against plaintiff as a result of the letter he
sent to Investigator Reinhoehl, that fact without more, does not demonstrate irreparable
harm. As the Supreme Court has noted, "the ‘cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of
having to defend against a single criminal prosecution’ was not the type of injury that
could justify injunctive relief." Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 601-02 (1975)
(citation omitted). Plaintiff's claim that he might face additional "false criminal charges"
from the defendants is entirely speculative and is patently insufficient to demonstrate
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted.
-7-
It has also been considered whether plaintiff has provided proof of a likelihood of
succeeding on the merits of his claims, or evidence that establishes sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits of such claims and a balance of hardships tipping
decidedly toward him as the party seeking such relief, see Covino, 967 F.2d at 77, and
concludes that he has not.
Plaintiff has failed to submit any proof or evidence which meets this standard.
Plaintiff has submitted only his motion containing his request for injunctive relief and the
reasons why he believes his request should be granted. Plaintiff’s allegations, standing
alone, are not sufficient to entitle him to preliminary injunctive relief. See Ivy Mar Co. v.
C.R. Seasons Ltd., 907 F. Supp. 547, 561 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) ("[B]are allegations, without
more, are insufficient for the issuance of a preliminary injunction."); Hancock v.
Essential Res., Inc., 792 F. Supp. 924, 928 (S.D.N.Y.1992) ("Preliminary injunctive
relief cannot rest on mere hypotheticals."). Moreover, plaintiff has not proffered any
evidence to contradict or otherwise call into question the affidavit testimony of
Investigator Reinoehl, who flatly contradicts the factual assertions upon which plaintiff's
motion is based. As set forth in that affidavit, defendants Reinoehl and Sullivan were
not involved in the investigation conducted by the New York State Police BCI into the
letter plaintiff sent to Investigator Reinhoehl in April 2010, they played no role in the
determination of whether criminal proceedings should be initiated, and have had no
contact with plaintiff's family for more than one year.
Since plaintiff has failed to establish either of the two requisite elements
-8-
discussed above, his request for injunctive relief will be denied.10
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED; and
2. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2011
Utica, New York.
In light of this ruling, the Court need not address defendants' remaining
arguments in opposition to plaintiff's motion.
10
-9-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?