Muhammad v. Shatrell

Full title: C. ELI-JAH HAKEEM MUHAMMAD, a.k.a. CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. J…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Oct 27, 2005

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01513-OES (D. Colo. Oct. 27, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01513-OES.

October 27, 2005

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/PROTECTIVE ORDER

ZITA WEINSHIENK, Senior District Judge

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP), who currently is incarcerated at ADX Florence. Plaintiff has filed a pro se Prisoner Complaint alleging that Defendants have violated his rights under the United States Constitution concerning his placement. He also has filed two Motions for Preliminary Injunction/Protective Order requesting that the Court direct Defendants to place him in a less restrictive program and cease retaliation against him. The Court must construe the Motions liberally, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as a pro se litigant's advocate. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the Motions will be denied.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have retaliated against him for challenging the conditions of his confinement, in particular for his filing of prison grievances and lawsuits. He further contends that as retaliation he has been denied placement in less restrictive programs. Plaintiff also asserts that he has been denied placement in less restrictive programs due to his race. He asks that the Court grant the Motions and direct Defendants to place Blacks and Latinos in less restrictive programs in the K-Unit and to restrain from retaliating against him.

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, that he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues, that the threatened injury to him outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest. See Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10^th Cir. 1980). Although Plaintiff claims a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits and that he will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted, he fails to allege any facts that demonstrate he is facing immediate and irreparable injury. Therefore, the Motions for Preliminary Injunction/Protective Order will be denied. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motions for Preliminary Injunction/Protective Order, filed September 14 and September 16, 2005, including Document Nos. 11 and 15, are denied.