Lawrence Broadnax, Bryan Dale Newton James Moore James Voss Jack Adargo v. United States Parole Commission Federal Bureau of Prisons, 116 F.3d 489, 10th Cir. (1997)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsLawrence Broadnax, Bryan Dale Newton James Moore James Voss Jack Adargo v. United States Parole Commission Federal Bureau of Prisons, 116 F.3d 489, 10th Cir. (1997)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs116 F.
3d 489
97 CJ C.A.R. 1103
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
Lawrence BROADNAX, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Bryan Dale NEWTON; James Moore; James Voss; Jack
Adargo, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-6161.
No. CIV-96-189.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 24, 1997.
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
1ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
BRORBY
2
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. Lawrence Broadnax, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's order of
April 24, 1996, denying his motion for a preliminary injunction.
On February 5, 1996, Mr. Broadnax and four other inmates (collectively
referred to as "Plaintiffs") awaiting parole revocation hearings at the Federal
Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 challenging the continued existence of the United
States Parole Commission (Parole Commission). On February 20, 1996,
Plaintiffs filed motions for a hearing before a three-judge panel, class
certification, and a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the United States Parole
Commission from violating their due process and equal protection rights.
Specifically, Plaintiffs requested the Parole Commission be prevented from: (1)
refusing to follow Congressional mandates; (2) transferring parole violators to
Oklahoma for revocation hearings; (3) conducting revocation hearings without
qualified examiners; (4) requiring parole violators to conduct their legal
research in the Federal Detention Center's inadequate law library; (5) unfairly
restricting retained counsels' access to parole violators compared to the access
afforded the Federal Public Defenders; (6) preventing parole violators from
reviewing their Central Files and other pertinent documents prior to their
revocation hearings; (7) refusing to afford HIV positive parole violators access
to appropriate medical care; (8) refusing to afford translators and bilingual
hearings for Spanish speaking parole violators; (9) transferring parole violators
from Hawaii; (10) refusing to wind up its business as Congressionally
mandated; and (11) continuing to utilize outdated rules and procedures.
On March 19, 1996, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending the district court deny Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction. The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge concluded Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the Parole
Commission would not be substantially harmed, the granting of the motion was
consistent with public policy, or a strong likelihood of success on the merits. In
addition, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs did not seek to maintain the
status quo pending a determination on the merits, but sought to use the
preliminary injunction as a vehicle to effect the remedies sought in the
complaint.
On April 24, 1996, the district court considered the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation de novo. The district court concurred in the Magistrate
Judge's findings and conclusions, adopted the Report and Recommendation,
and denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
On appeal, Mr. Broadnax 1 contends the district court erred in denying the
motion for a preliminary injunction based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and in
adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Mr. Broadnax
asserts (1) preliminary injunctive relief could not be denied under Rule 23(b)
(2) because it was so "inextricably interwoven with the Class Certification
Motion" the district court could not rule on one motion without ruling on the
other; and (2) the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was clearly
erroneous.
9
We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of
discretion, which occurs only when the district court bases its decision on
erroneous conclusions of law or where there is no rational basis in the evidence
for the district court's decision. Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v.
United States Dep't of the Army, 111 F.3d 1485, 1489 (10th Cir.1997). To
establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show
(1) he will suffer irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted; (2) the
threatened injury to the moving party outweighs any injury the requested
injunction may cause the nonmoving party; (3) the injunction would not be
detrimental to the public interest; and (4) a substantial likelihood the moving
party will succeed on the merits. Walmer v. United States Dep't of Defense, 52
F.3d 851, 854 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 474 (1995).
10
After a careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not
commit error of law or abuse its discretion in finding Mr. Broadnax failed to
establish the necessary requirements for a preliminary injunction. First, the
district court applied the correct standard of law for a preliminary injunction.
Second, the record demonstrates Mr. Broadnax failed to present sufficient
evidence showing the following: irreparable injury absent a preliminary
injunction; his threatened injury outweighs the potential injury to the Parole
Commission; the preliminary injunction is not adverse to the public interest; or
there is a substantial likelihood he will prevail on the merits. Therefore, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Broadnax a preliminary
injunction.
11
Additionally, Mr. Broadnax's argument under Rule 23(b)(2) is without merit.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) provides an action may be maintained as a class action if
all the requirements of subsection (a) are met and the party opposing the class
has made final injunctive relief appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) (emphasis
added). In this appeal, we are concerned with preliminary injunctive relief only,
not final injunctive relief. Therefore, by its own language Rule 23(b)(2) clearly
does not apply.
12
Accordingly, we AFFIRM substantially for the reasons stated in the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation of March 19, 1996, and the district court's
Order of April 24, 1996.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally
disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3
On March 5, 1996, this court dismissed Mr. Broadnax's co-plaintiffs for failure
to prosecute the appeal
You might also like
- No ratings yetMikell Patrick Smith v. James L. Saffle Bobby L. Boone Rita Andrews Danny Nace Jerry Dowling Perry Little John Bobby Bryant Lloyd Basinger Billy L. Key George Dugan Bruce H. White Gary D. Maynard Larry A. Fields Jerry Johnson Linda Morgan, Administrative Officer, Oklahoma State Prison Nancy Carpenter, Oklahoma State Prison Larry Watson, Sergeant, Oklahoma State Prison Kathy Strong, Correctional Officer, Oklahoma State Prison, 989 F.2d 508, 10th Cir. (1993)5 pages
- No ratings yetMichael C. Washington v. Susan Brimer Loving Wellon B. Poe Karin Kriz Sue Wycoff Larry A. Fields Dan Reynolds James L. Saffle Michael D. Parsons Dolores Ramsey Dept. Of Corrections Malik Muhammad Jemal Aziz Dawud Ali Gay Abston Tudor Joe Manning Gregory H. Hall Calvin Samuel Muse, Jr. Hugh Reed Robert A. Nance Phil Dessauer Daniel Binty William R. Evans, 107 F.3d 881, 10th Cir. (1997)4 pages
