Hooks v. Hooks

W.D. North Carolina

Hooks v. Hooks

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedMay 18, 2022

Docket3:18-cv-00611

StatusUnknown

This text of Hooks v. Hooks (Hooks v. Hooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hooks v. Hooks, (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 3:18-cv-000611-MR

EDWARD ALAN HOOKS, ) a/k/a Edward Alan Wold, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ORDER vs. ) ) ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary, North ) Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Injunctive Relief [Doc. 32], filed by the Petitioner, Edward Alan Hooks (“the Petitioner”) on October 31, 2021. In his Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Petitioner requests this Court order officials at Harnett Correctional Institution to cease from confiscating and refusing to return the Petitioner’s property, including legal work, research documents, and religious materials. [Doc. 32 at 1]. “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes entitlement to the relief sought.” Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 1997)(citing Hughes Network Systems, Inc. v. InterDigital Communications Corp., 171 F.3d 691, 693 (4th Cir. 1994)). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish 1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; 3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 2017). This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding and this matter is presently stayed pending the exhaustion of the Petitioner's state court remedies. [Doc. 6]. He seeks an injunction against non-parties to address conduct that is distinct and unrelated to the issues in this habeas proceeding. The Petitioner does not establish any entitlement to injunctive relief. The Petitioner’s complaints regarding the handling of his property should be addressed through the prison grievance system, not in this § 2254 proceeding. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion for Injunctive Relief [Doc. 32] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: May 18, 2022 ie ey Chief United States District Judge Ale

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 3:18-cv-000611-MR

EDWARD ALAN HOOKS, ) a/k/a Edward Alan Wold, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ORDER vs. ) ) ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary, North ) Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Injunctive Relief [Doc. 32], filed by the Petitioner, Edward Alan Hooks (“the Petitioner”) on October 31, 2021. In his Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Petitioner requests this Court order officials at Harnett Correctional Institution to cease from confiscating and refusing to return the Petitioner’s property, including legal work, research documents, and religious materials. [Doc. 32 at 1]. “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes entitlement to the relief sought.” Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 1997)(citing Hughes Network Systems, Inc. v. InterDigital Communications Corp., 171 F.3d 691, 693 (4th Cir. 1994)). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish 1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; 3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 2017). This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding and this matter is presently stayed pending the exhaustion of the Petitioner's state court remedies. [Doc. 6]. He seeks an injunction against non-parties to address conduct that is distinct and unrelated to the issues in this habeas proceeding. The Petitioner does not establish any entitlement to injunctive relief. The Petitioner’s complaints regarding the handling of his property should be addressed through the prison grievance system, not in this § 2254 proceeding. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion for Injunctive Relief [Doc. 32] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: May 18, 2022 ie ey Chief United States District Judge Ale

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hooks v. Hooks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooks-v-hooks-ncwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack