Bradshaw v. Burns et al, No. 9:2019cv00931 - Document 25 (N.D.N.Y 2019)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 4 ) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide plaintiff with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on December 12, 2019. (Attachments: # 1 Case Law, # 2 Case Law, # 3 Case Law, # 4 Case Law, # 5 Case Law, # 6 Case Law, # 7 Case Law) (Copy served via regular mail)(rep)

Download PDF

Bradshaw v. Burns et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAY BRADSHAW, Plaintiff, 9:19-CV-0931 (BKS/DJS) v. W. BURNS, et al., Defendants. APPEARANCES: JAY BRADSHAW 08-A-3654 Plaintiff, pro se Southport Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2000 Pine City, NY 14871 HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 JOSHUA E. McMAHON, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General BRENDA K. SANNES United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jay Bradshaw commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") and a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dockets.Justia.com Dkt. No. 6 ("IFP Application"); Dkt. No. 4 ("Preliminary Injunction Motion").1 By Decision and Order filed on October 1, 2019, this Court granted plaintiff's IFP Application in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) after finding that plaintiff made a preliminary showing that he is entitled to the "imminent danger" exception, and after screening the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), dism issed certain claims and defendants from this action, and directed a response for the claims that survived sua sponte review and the Preliminary Injunction Motion. Dkt. No. 9 ("October 2019 Order"). Following service on one of the named defendants, counsel submitted an opposition to the Preliminary Injunction Motion. See Dkt. No. 16. II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION "In general, district courts may grant a preliminary injunction where a plaintiff demonstrates 'irreparable harm' and meets one of two related standards: 'either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its claims to make them fair ground for litigation, plus a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party.'" Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. New York State Dep't of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lynch v. City of N.Y., 589 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, when the moving party seeks a "mandatory injunction that alters the status quo by commanding a positive act," the burden is even higher. Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. , 598 F.3d 30, 35 1 Plaintiff's initial application to proceed IFP was denied as incomplete and the action was administratively closed. Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff then re-filed his IFP Application, and this action was re-opened. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7. 2 n.4 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)). A mandatory preliminary injunction "should issue only upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from a denial of preliminary relief." Cacchillo, 638 F.3d at 406 (citing Citigroup Global Mkts., 598 F.3d at 35 n.4) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 33-34 (2d Cir. 1995) (a plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction must make a "clear" or "substantial" showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim). The same standards used to review a request for a preliminary injunction govern consideration of an application for a temporary restraining order. Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1228 (2d Cir. 1992); Perri v. Bloomberg, No. 06-CV-0403, 2008 WL 2944642, at * 2 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 31, 2008). The district court has wide discretion in determining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief. Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 511 (2d Cir. 2005). "In the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution so as not to immerse the federal judiciary in the management of state prisons." Fisher v. Goord, 981 F. Supp. 140, 167 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846-47 (1994)) (other citations omitted). In his motion, plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to "turn off the night light during the night hours[,]" "cease . . . banging on [plaintiff's] cell door in the night hours, and . . . feed [plaintiff] during every meal." See Preliminary Injunction Motion at 1. In his opposition to plaintiff's motion, counsel for defendant Russell argues that plaintiff's motion should be denied because (1) plaintiff has failed to make a clear showing that he is entitled to the relief 3 requested, and (2) the portion of plaintiff's motion that seeks an Order directing defendants to feed him "during every meal" is tantamount to an improper "obey the law" request. See Dkt. No. 16 at 1-2. The Court need not weigh into the merits of counsel's arguments because after plaintiff's motion was made, he was transferred to Southport Correctional Facility. See Dkt. No. 11. In light of plaintiff's transfer, and the absence of any credible evidence that he is likely to continue suffering the same harm that was the subject of his existing claims despite his transfer, his request for injunctive relief is moot. See Prins v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506 (2d Cir. 1996) ("It is settled in this Circuit that a transfer from a prison facility moots an action for injunctive relief against the transferring facility."); see also Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 272 (2d Cir. 2006) ("In this circuit, an inmate's transfer from a prison facility generally moots claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials of that facility."). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 4) is denied. WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide plaintiff with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with the Second Circuit decision in Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam); and it is further 4 ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 12, 2019 Syracuse, NY 5

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.