Hurley v. Brewer et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Senior Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 1/2/2025. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(aab)

$-&3,h4
0''*$&
64
%*45
$0635

"5
30"/0,&
7"
'*-&%
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
January 03, 2025
-"63"
"
"645*/
$-&3,

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ROANOKE DIVISION

#:

s/A. Beeson

%&165:
$-&3,

JOSHUA ADAM HURLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY L. BREWER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:24-cv-00436
By: Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge

ORDER
Joshua Adam Hurley, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that officers with he Wythe County Sheriff’s Office and the Wytheville Police
Department violated his constitutional rights during the course of his arrest. The case is presently
before the court on the plaintiff’s motion requesting assistance in obtaining Suboxone and other
medications at the New River Valley Regional Jail, which the court construes as a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. ECF No. 18. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
public interest.” Id. at 20. The plaintiff must also “establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the [plaintiff’s] motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Omega World
Travel v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Devose v. Herrington,
42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). “This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in
a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” Pac.

Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 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.” Omega World Travel, 111
F.3d at 16.
Applying these principles, the court concludes that Hurley’s motion for preliminary
injunctive relief must be denied. The motion does not address any of the requirements set forth
in Winter or seek to prevent harm caused by the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.
Instead, the motion seeks relief based on entirely new allegations of being denied access to
medications previously prescribed by a physician. Even if the new allegations are true, they do
not provide a basis for preliminary injunctive relief in this action against the law enforcement
officers allegedly involved in Hurley’s arrest. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC, 810 F.3d at 636
(explaining that “new assertions of misconduct . . . do not support preliminary injunctions
unrelated to the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint”).
For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Hurley’s motion, ECF No. 18, is
DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered: January 2, 2025
Mike Urbanski
Senior U.S. District Judge
2025.01.02 20:13:58
-05'00'

Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge

2