Riddick v. Mullins

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION STEVE RIDDICK, ) CASE NO. 7:20CV00096 ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) JEFFREY B. KISER, ET AL., ) By: Glen E. Conrad ) Senior United States District Judge Defendants. )

This case is presently before the court on Plaintiff Steve Riddick’s new motion seeking interlocutory injunctive relief. He complains that his legal mail is not being promptly delivered to him, which reduces his response time to court orders. He also complains that he has had difficulty obtaining the services of a notary. Riddick wants the court to order prison staff to stop holding his legal mail and to provide legal services, such as a notary. Because preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, the party seeking such relief must make a clear showing “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Each of these four factors must be satisfied. Id. Because Riddick’s motion makes no such showings, the motion must be summarily denied. An appropriate order will issue herewith. ENTER: This _!8th day of December, 2020. Fe, Connrwk Senior United States District Judge