Aikens v. Bishop et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 7 request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 8/10/2018. (MEAL) Copy mailed to Plaintiff.

PS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________
ANTHONY AIKENS,
Plaintiff,
-v-

17-CV-1266S
ORDER

CO MONK and SGT. HUNTER,
Defendants.
___________________________________
Pro se Plaintiff Anthony Aikens (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner confined at the Attica
Correctional Facility, filed this action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a
religious discrimination claim against Defendants.

Presently before the Court is a

“Proposed Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order,” which the Court construes as a request for injunctive relief. (Docket Item 7.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s sparse filing seeks to enjoin Defendants from engaging in the following
behavior: “assaults, tickets in retaliation, contraband planted in call, mail and legal mail
tampered with, and destruction of any personal property.” Id. He submits no allegations
in support of this request.
Rule 65 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party . . . only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss,
or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts
made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (b)(1)(A) and (B).
1

“Generally, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that it will
suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief and either (1) that it is likely to succeed on
the merits of the action, or (2) that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the
merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, provided that the balance of hardships
tips decidedly in favor of the moving party.” Mullins v. City of N.Y., 626 F.3d 47, 52–53
(2d Cir. 2010) (citing Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master
Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 34–35 (2d Cir. 2010)).
Here, Plaintiff does not demonstrate any effort to notify the Defendants of his
request for injunctive relief, nor do his papers demonstrate a likelihood of success on the
merits and irreparable injury, or raise any serious questions going to the merits.
Moreover, none of the named Defendants are alleged to have engaged in any of the
actions mentioned in his application. See Allen v. Brown, 1998 WL 214418, *4 (N.D.N.Y.
Apr. 28, 1998) (finding the relief that a plaintiff seeks by way of injunction must relate to
the allegations contained in the underlying complaint) (citing Sweeney v. Bane, 996 F.2d
1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Consequently, Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction (Docket Item 7) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

/s/William M. Skretny
William M. Skretny
United States District Judge
DATED:

August 10, 2018
Buffalo, NY

2