Vivek Shah v. Charles Samuels, Jr., No. 15-1952 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Bivens action. No error in denying plaintiff's request for injunctive relief as he failed to show a clear threat of irreparable harm.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1952 ___________________________ Vivek Shah lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Charles E. Samuels, Jr., D.S.C.C. Administrator, sued in his official capacity; United States of America; Jose A. Santana, DSCC Administrator (originally named as Doe) lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: August 13, 2015 Filed: August 18, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal in a pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), federal inmate Vivek Shah challenges the district court’s1 denials of preliminary injunctive relief. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief, because Shah did not show a clear threat of irreparable harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (appellate jurisdiction); H&R Block Tax. Servs. LLC v. Acevedo-Lopez, 742 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (setting forth relevant factors to be considered in determining whether preliminary injunction should issue). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
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.
