Puente v. Munoz et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION & ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 9/2/14. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
FERNANDO C. PUENTE

§

VS.

§

WARDEN MUNOZ, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:13cv126

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Fernando C. Puente, an inmate confined in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against several defendants.
Currently pending before the court is a motion (doc. no. 28)
in which plaintiff request a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff

states he has had difficulty receiving mail in a timely fashion, as
well as difficulty sending out mail.

In addition, plaintiff

alleges a drawing was improperly confiscated.
Analysis
Requirements for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the
following elements:

(1) there is a substantial likelihood the

party will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat exists
that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted;
(3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the
defendants and (4) the granting of the restraining order will not
disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991 (5th
Cir. 1987); Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. Callaway,
489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974). Relief should be granted only if the

party has clearly carried the burden of persuasion as to all four
elements.

Mississippi Power & Light v. United Gas Pipe Line, 760

F.2d 618 (5th Cir. 1985).
Application
After

reviewing

the

file

in

this

matter,

it

cannot

be

concluded that plaintiff has carried the burden of persuasion with
respect to the first element listed above. Without expressing any
opinion as to the merits of plaintiff’s claims, the court is unable
to conclude at this point in the proceedings that there is a
substantial likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits of his
claims.

Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary

injunctive relief.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction is DENIED.
SIGNED this the 2 day of September, 2014.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge

2