Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director

C.D. California

Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director

DecidedSeptember 30, 2019

Docket5:19-cv-01015

StatusUnknown

This text of Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director (Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

l 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 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 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

l 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 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 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nigel-nicholas-douglas-v-bop-director-cacd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack