Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director

Opinion

l 4 5 6 7 10 11 | NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, Case No. 5:19-cv-01015-R (MAA) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 3 v INJUNCTION NT

14 || BOP DIRECTOR et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On May 2, 2019, Plaintiff Nigel Nicholas Douglas (“Plaintiff”), a federal 19 || prisoner currently incarcerated at the Pulaski County Detention Center in Ullin, 20 || Illinios, filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants BOP Director, Unit Counselor 21 || Villanueva, Unit Officer Melix, Property Officer Cardenas, Officer Zumkher, R&D 22 || Staff Gonzales, Rec. Officer Joseph, and Unknown Others (collectively, 23 || “Defendants”) wrongfully converted Plaintiff's property—mainly original artwork 24 || created by Plaintiff and art supplies—when Plaintiff was placed in a solitary 25 || housing unit (“SHU”) and transferred. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts 26 || claims for conversion, trespass to chattel, unjust enrichment, theft, conspiracy, 27 || replevin, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 28 || (“RICO”). (Ud. at 12-15.)

1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’'s Motion for Permanent Injunction, which 2 || Plaintiff filed on May 16, 2019. (“Motion,” ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff requests an 3 || injunction ending Defendants’ alleged predatory practice of acquiring inmate 4 || property when inmates are placed in SHU or transferred, and an inventory and 5 || return of Plaintiff's property. (Ud. at'2-3.) 6 “The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of 7 || equitable discretion by the district court ....” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 8 | 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). “To be entitled to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff 9 |} must demonstrate: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) that it has suffered an 10 || irreparable injury; (3) that remedies available at law are inadequate; (3) that the 11 || balance of hardships justify a remedy in equity; and (4) that the public interest 12 || would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Indep. Training & 13 || Apprenticeship Program v. Cal. Dep’t of Indus. Rels., 730 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th 14 || Cir. 2013); see also Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 15 || (1987) (“The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a 16 || permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of 17 || success on the merits rather than actual success.”). 18 Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated actual—or even likely—success on the 19 || merits, that he has suffered an irreparable injury, that remedies at law are 20 || inadequate, that the balance of hardships justify a remedy in equity, or that the 21 || public interest would be served by a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the 22 || Motion is DENIED. 24 25 26 || DATED: September 30, 2019 _@ Q I Rarrincas GARY R. KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

1 || Presented by: 2

4 || MARIA A-AUDERO 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28