Frejomil v. Goord

Full title: RICHARD FREJOMIL, Plaintiff, v. GLENN S. GOORD, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Apr 30, 2002

02 Civ. 0661 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2002)

Opinion

02 Civ. 0661 (LAK).

April 30, 2002

ORDER

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff, an inmate at Greenhaven Correctional Facility, moves for a preliminary injunction restraining defendants from transferring him to another facility during the pendency of this action. Although he does not claim that he has been told of an anticipated transfer or, for that matter, that a transfer is imminent absent action of the Court, he contends that "a transfer at this time would constitute nothing more than retaliation for plaintiff's recently filed action." Frejomil Aff. ¶ 4. He contends, moreover, that a transfer would cause irreparable injury because plaintiff is relying on the assistance of other Greenhaven inmates in pursuing this action.

Ordinarily, one seeking a preliminary injunction in this Circuit must "demonstrate a threat of irreparable injury and either (i) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (ii) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor." Absolute Recovery Hedge Fund, L.P. v. Gaylord Container Corp., 185 F. Supp.2d 381, 384-85 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Forest City Daly Hous., Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead, 175 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 1999)); Alliance Bond Fund v. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A., 143 F.3d 688, 696 (2d Cir. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 527 U.S. 308 (1999). A clear showing of threatened irreparable injury is essential. E.g., Triebwasser v. Am. Tel. Tel. Co., 535 F.2d 1356, 1359 (2d Cir. 1976); Marcy Playground, Inc. v. Capitol Records, Inc., 6 F. Supp.2d 277, 280-81 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Rothpearl v. Second Avenue Lumber Corp., 221 B.R. 76, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

In this case, plaintiff has failed to establish a clear threat of irreparable injury. While the Court assumes that a transfer would be disruptive, at least in the short run, to his ability to obtain the assistance of other prisoners in pursuing the action, the threat of a transfer at this point is pure speculation. In any case, plaintiff has not established either a likelihood of success on the merits of his contention that any transfer would be retaliatory or that there are sufficiently serious questions in that regard to make them a fair ground for litigation.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

SO ORDERED.