Robert Maxwell v. Rick Toney, et al, No. 09-2868 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - preliminary injunction. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for preliminary injunction, as plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2868 ___________ Robert Maxwell, Appellant, v. Arkansas Department of Correction; Diagnostic Unit, Defendants, Rick Toney, Warden, Diagnostic Unit, ADC; Bobby Hamilton, Sgt., Diagnostic Unit, ADC; Sean Campbell, CO-II, Diagnostic Unit, ADC; Sharita Goodlow, CO-I, Diagnostic Unit, ADC, Appellees, Varner Unit, Defendant, Darryl Goden, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Sherry Conrad, Mail Room Supervisor, Varner Unit, ADC; Tammy Courtney, CO-II, Varner Unit, ADC, Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. [UNPUBLISHED] Patricia Gooley, * * Defendant, * * Corderro Davis, CO-I, Varner Unit, * ADC; Allene Anderson, CO-I, Varner * Unit, ADC, * * Appellees, * * Varner Super Max, * * Defendant, * * Brooks Parks, Warden, Varner Super * Max, ADC; Letha Phillips, CO-I, * Varner Super Max, ADC; Latasha * Carpenter, CO-I, Varner Super Max, * ADC; Rodney Woods, CO-I, Varner * Super Max, ADC; Inez Harden, CO-I, * Varner Super Max, ADC; Revonna * Walker, Classification Officer, Varner * Super Max, ADC; Larry McCray, CO-I, * Varner Super Max, ADC; Does, John * and Jane 1-9, Varner & Varner Super * Max Mental Health, Classification * Board Members, and Diagnostic Unit * Grievance Committee; Kimberly Tate, * CO-I, Varner Unit, ADC; Joana Taylor, * CO-I, Varner Unit, ADC; David Hurt, * CO-I, Varner Super Max, ADC; * Bobby Kent, CO-II, Varner Super * Max, ADC; Phillip Gordon, CO-I, * Varner Super Max, ADC; Shawn * Brown, Ms, Varner Super Max Mental * Health, ADC; Sandra Stratton, * Classification Board Member; Angela * -2- Milburn, Classification Board Member; Willie Hampton, Classification Board Member; Debra Hampton, Classification Board Member; Abesie Kelly, Dr., Classification Board Member, Appellees. * * * * * * * * ___________ Submitted: March 4, 2010 Filed: March 8, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas Department of Correction inmate Robert Maxwell challenges the order of the District Court1 denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Upon careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a preliminary injunction was not warranted in this case. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1292(a)(1) (giving courts of appeals jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders refusing injunctions); Bandag, Inc. v. Jack s Tire & Oil, Inc., 190 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review). Maxwell did not allege sufficient facts to show a threat of irreparable harm resulting from the alleged threats and harassment, interference with his mail, or denial of his requests for library time. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113, 114 n.9 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (holding that whether a preliminary injunction 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- should issue involves consideration of, inter alia, the threat of irreparable harm and noting that lack of a threat of irreparable injury is a sufficient reason to deny a preliminary injunction); see also Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a request for injunctive relief in the prison context is "viewed with great caution" because of the particular problems of prison administration). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
