Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-11111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bright v. Annucci, Judge Roman denied Willie Bright’s fourth request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Willie Bright was denied emergency injunctive relief. The ruling concerned his request for orders directed at Anthony Annucci, other defendants, and relevant correctional-facility staff; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
What happened
Willie Bright, representing himself, sued Anthony Annucci and others under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that defendants transferred him to another correctional facility and threatened him in retaliation for filing the lawsuit. He asked the court to keep Clinton Correctional Facility staff away from him, ensure his safety, or move him to a safer location.
The court said Bright had provided no new information supporting emergency relief. It also found that he had not shown a likely chance of winning his lawsuit. Because Bright had recently filed a second amended complaint, was seeking more time to amend it, and the defendants had not yet filed answers, the court said it was difficult to determine whether he had a strong likelihood of success.
In an opinion dated January 12, 2022, Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Bright’s request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and mail Bright a copy of the opinion and docket.
The detailed version
- Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci · No. 7:18-cv-11111
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 12, 2022
Background
Willie Bright, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anthony Annucci and other defendants. Before the court was Bright’s fourth request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Bright alleged that defendants transferred him to another correctional facility and continued making threats against him in retaliation for filing this action.
Bright asked the court to order defendants and staff at Clinton Correctional Facility acting with them to stay away from him until the case was resolved. He also asked the court to require Annucci to ensure his safety at Clinton Correctional Facility or relocate him to a safer location.
The court noted that Bright had made earlier requests for similar relief. It had denied his first request in March 2019, denied a second request later that month, and denied a third request while granting him permission to amend his complaint.
Legal standard
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Generally, the party requesting one must show that the requested relief is needed to prevent irreparable harm and that the party is likely to succeed on the merits, or that serious questions justify litigation and the balance of hardships strongly favors the requesting party. A mandatory injunction—one that changes rather than preserves the current situation—requires a stronger showing, including a clear or substantial likelihood of success or extreme or very serious harm without relief.
Court’s analysis
The court acknowledged that Bright’s allegations were serious but found that his fourth request supplied no new information entitling him to a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The court found that Bright still had not shown a likelihood of success on his complaint.
The court also explained that Bright had filed a second amended complaint on December 3, 2021, and had requested additional time to amend or supplement it. He was allowed to amend, with a deadline of January 28, 2022. The defendants had not yet had an opportunity to answer the complaint. For those reasons, the court said it was difficult to determine whether Bright had a clear or substantial likelihood of success.
Disposition
The court denied Bright’s request for a preliminary injunction. The opinion’s opening also describes the request as including a temporary restraining order. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 125 and mail Bright the opinion and docket, with proof of service entered on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.