Notice: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) States Unpublished Orders Shall Not Be Cited or Used As Precedent Except to Support a Claim of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or Law of the Case in Any Federal Court Within the Circuit.lokmar Y. Abdul-wadood, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Steve Huckins, et al., Defendants-appellees, 103 F.3d 133 (7th Cir. 1996)

ORDER

Plaintiff Lokmar Y. Abdul-Wadood, an Indiana prisoner, has exhausted the three "strikes" allowed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996) ("PLRA"). However, because this appeal was pending at the time that the PLRA was enacted, we will reach the merits, according to our explanation in Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996).

In July 1995, Abdul-Wadood filed a civil rights action against defendants, various prison officials and guards, claiming excessive force and deliberate indifference to various physical injuries. After missing the deadline for filing a petition for certiorari, Abdul-Wadood amended the complaint and sought damages for the guards' confiscation of a booklet containing the Rules of the Supreme Court.¹  Plaintiff then filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to direct defendants to return the booklet. On September 22, 1995, the district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction requesting a return of the booklet. The court found plaintiff had failed to show he would suffer irreparable harm or a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Abdul-Wadood took an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 from the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff has made no showing of irreparable harm; he does not suggest that the Supreme Court Rules are not otherwise available through the prison law library or other sources. Plaintiff also has failed to show the reasonable likelihood of success on the merits as to the claim that he suffered compensatory damages as a result of the confiscation of the booklet. Moreover, he has an adequate remedy at law in that he may continue with the present action in the district court, since the certiorari deadline had already passed by the time he filed the motion for injunctive relief.

We find that the appeal is frivolous. Abdul-Wadood is fond of filing interlocutory appeals from the denial of motions for preliminary injunctions, thereby taking a more timely, expensive and circuitous route to resolving what are too often frivolous claims. As stated in our August 2, 1996 opinion in Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d at 1025, the PLRA now prevents him from making filings in the future without prepayment of the appropriate fees.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.