Tolliver v. Jordan

Background

Eric Tolliver, who was housed at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, submitted a letter asking the court to transfer him back to Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The court treated the letter as a motion for a preliminary injunction, meaning a request for temporary court-ordered relief while the case continues.

Tolliver argued that he had no problems living at Sing Sing and that there was no reason to transfer him again. The defendants argued that he had not met the burden required for a preliminary injunction, that prisoners do not have a right to be housed at a facility of their choice, and that he had been transferred from Sing Sing because the facility was medically unsuitable for him.

Legal Standard

The court explained that Tolliver had to show both a likelihood of irreparable harm—harm that could not adequately be repaired later—and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him. The court described a preliminary injunction as an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing.

The court also stated that prisoners generally have no liberty interest in remaining at a particular correctional facility and that administrative decisions about prison transfers are generally within the discretion of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Tolliver had shown no likelihood of success on the merits to the extent he asked the court to order his transfer. The court noted that his amended complaint sought, among other relief, a transfer to Sullivan Correctional Facility and alleged that he needed a facility that accommodated his disability. The court found that he had not provided facts supporting a transfer to Sing Sing, particularly because the defendants asserted that Sing Sing could not accommodate his disability.

The court also rejected Tolliver’s argument that he would suffer irreparable harm from being denied access to the law library at Sing Sing. The court had extended his time to oppose the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, instructed the Clerk’s Office to process his request for copies of docket filings, and directed the defendants to serve him another copy of their motion papers.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied without prejudice Tolliver’s application for a preliminary injunction transferring him to Sing Sing. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail Tolliver a copy of the order.