Perkins v. Napoli et al, No. 6:2009cv06302 - Document 43 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER denying 9 Motion for TRO; denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 1/31/10. (KAP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ MICHAEL PERKINS, Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER -vs09-CV-6302 CJS DAVID F. NAPOLI, et al., Defendants __________________________________________ Plaintiff, a prison inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ( DOCS ), is suing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. Now before the Court are two applications by Plaintiff for injunctive relief (Docket Nos. [#9][#17]). The applications are denied. BACKGROUND At the time Plaintiff filed the subject applications, he was housed at Southport Correctional Facility ( Southport ). In the first application [#9], Plaintiff alleges that he is being harassed by staff at Southport. As for injunctive relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court order that he be transferred to another correctional facility. As for the second application [#17], Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an injunction, directing the Superintendent at Southport to preserve an audio/videotape of the B-Block area of Southport, made on October 2, 2009, between 8:55 AM and 9:30 AM. According to Plaintiff, the tape will show him being assaulted by Defendant Daniel Chapman ( Chapman ) and other corrections officers. 1 DISCUSSION The standard to be applied when considering an application for preliminary injunctive relief is well settled: A party seeking a preliminary injunction ordinarily must show: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction; and (2) either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor. When the movant seeks a mandatory injunction-that is, as in this case, an injunction that will alter rather than maintain the status quo- [he] must meet the more rigorous standard of demonstrating a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Violation of a constitutional right is considered irreparable harm. Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir.1996) ( The district court . . . properly relied on the presumption of irreparable injury that flows from a violation of constitutional rights. ); see also, Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir.1998) ( In the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction, violations of First Amendment rights are commonly considered irreparable injuries. ) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, [t]o prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint. Candelaria v. Baker, No. 00-CV-0912E(SR), 2006 WL 618576 at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2006) (citation omitted); accord, Taylor v. Rowland, No. 3:02CV229(DJS)(TPS), 2004 W L 231453 at *2-3 (D.Conn. Feb. 2, 2004). In this case, Plaintiff first requests an injunction, ordering that he be transferred from Southport to another correctional facility. However, Plaintiff is no longer housed at 2 Southport. Instead, Plaintiff is currently housed at Upstate Correctional Facility. Accordingly, Plaintiff s request for a transfer is denied as moot. As for Plaintiff s request for an order directing Southport to preserve the audio/videotape, Plaintiff has not shown that he made any demand for the production or preservation of such evidence through the normal discovery procedures. Nor has Plaintiff shown that the evidence is in danger of being destroyed. Accordingly, the request is denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff s applications for injunctive relief [#9] [#17] are denied. So Ordered. Dated: Rochester, New York January 31, 2010 ENTER: /s/ Charles J. Siragusa CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
