United States District Court, N.D. New York
JOHN H. WHITE, Plaintiff,
DONALD UHLER, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
LAWRENCE E. KAHN U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff John H. White commenced this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1
(“Complaint”). Presently before the Court are
Plaintiff's third motion for preliminary injunctive
relief and Plaintiff's motion for contempt. Dkt. Nos.
173, 174, 175, 181. Defendants oppose the motions. Dkt. No.
November 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking relief
for an alleged violation of his constitutional rights during
his confinement at Upstate Correctional Facility
(“Upstate C.F.”). Compl. at 3. Plaintiff's
allegations involve incidents that occurred at Upstate C.F.
from June 12, 2013 through November 4, 2014. Id. In
January 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief
seeking an order directing defendants to “stop ongoing
harms related to double cell housing” and for an order
protecting him from physical injury and attacks by guards and
inmates. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9. In a Decision and Order filed
in April 2015, after review of the Complaint in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, the Court
found that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims and
supervisory claims against nineteen defendants survived
review and required a response. Dkt. No. 14 (“April
Order”) at 45. In the April Order, the Court also
denied Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive
relief. Id. at 41.
February 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to Southport
Correctional Facility (“Southport C.F.”). Dkt.
No. 86. In March 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion for
injunctive relief, this time related to incidents that
occurred at Southport C.F. Dkt. Nos. 95, 107. Plaintiff
claimed that various individuals, who are not parties to this
action, refused to allow Plaintiff to send copies of his
documents to the Court and to defense counsel, prevented him
from mailing exhibits to defense counsel, and failed to
process his legal mail. Dkt. No. 95 at 1-2. Plaintiff also
claimed that he was not provided with equipment, adequate
nutrition, or physical therapy. Id. And Plaintiff
asserted that he was deprived of his freedom of speech and
confined to a “feces infested” and
“hostile” environment. Dkt. No. 107 at 2.
5, 2016, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying
Plaintiff's motion, holding that, under the circumstances
of this case, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief
against nonparties was improper. Dkt. No. 119 (“June
Order”) at 3. The Court also concluded that Plaintiff
failed to substantiate any allegations of irreparable harm
with evidence in admissible form or to demonstrate, with
evidence, a likelihood of success on the merits of his
underlying claims, or sufficiently serious questions going to
the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in
his favor. Id. at 4. The Court reasoned that
Plaintiff sought relief for incidents that were unrelated to
his underlying causes of action. Id. at 5.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
of preliminary injunctions was discussed in the June Order
and will not be restated herein. Id. at 1-2.
Plaintiff is presently confined at Southport C.F. Dkt. No.
86. In his third motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff
claims that staff at Southport C.F. are not providing
sufficient legal supplies, including pens. Dkt. No. 181 at 1,
3, 7. Plaintiff claims that it is difficult for him to
provide the Court and opposing counsel with copies of his
submissions. Id. at 1, 5. Plaintiff seeks an order
directing the staff at Southport C.F. to provide Plaintiff
with legal supplies and access to a photocopy machine.
Id. at 1. Plaintiff wants a mandatory injunction, so
the Court will use the “clear and substantial”
showing of a likelihood of success standard.
oppose the motion arguing that (1) Plaintiff's motion is
frivolous, (2) Plaintiff fails to explain what he has been
prevented from copying or mailing or how that has impaired
his ability to prosecute any lawsuit, and (3) Plaintiff is
capable of filing multiple documents in his various cases.
Resp. at 4-5.
Plaintiff has multiple additional actions pending in the
Northern District of New York in which he has requested the
same relief. In November 2016, Plaintiff filed a similar
motion for injunctive relief in White v. Tatro, No.
15-CV-1489, 2016 WL 7735757 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2016). In a
Report-Recommendation filed on November 28, 2016, Magistrate
Judge Andrew T. Baxter denied Plaintiff's request because
he sought “speculative relief against individuals who
are not defendants in this action.” Id. at
White v. Allen, No. 14-CV-1105 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 10,
2016), Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief raising
the same arguments set forth here with the same documentary
evidence annexed to the motion papers. In a Decision and
Order filed in January 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's
motion because he sought relief against employees of
Southport C.F. who were not parties to the action.
Id. at 4.
the Court, consistent with the orders in Plaintiff's
other actions, denies Plaintiff's request for injunctive
relief because the staff at Southport C.F. are not defendants
in this action. See In re Rationis Enter., Inc. of
Pan., 261 F.3d 264, 270 (2d Cir. 2001) (“A court
may not grant a final, or even an interlocutory, injunction
over a party over whom it does not have personal
jurisdiction.”); Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v.
Reinert & ...