Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Devose v. Herrington

42 F.3d 470

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1994-12-14
Topic: general

concluding that new allegations of retaliation did not entitle an inmate to a preliminary injunction in an action for inadequate medical treatment | concluding that new allegations of retaliation did not entitle an inmate to preliminary injunctive relief in an action for inadequate medical treatment | holding that “new assertions” of retaliation and mistreatment “cannot provide the basis for a preliminary injunction” | concluding that retaliation claims cannot establish grounds for a TRO because they are entirely different from the claims raised in the complaint | concluding that retaliation claims cannot establish grounds for a TRO because they are are entirely different from the claims raised in the complaint | holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint | finding that because plaintiff’s motion raised issues different from those presented in his complaint, his allegations could not provide the basis for a preliminary injunction | finding that because plaintiff’s motion raised issues different from those presented in his complaint, his allegations could not provide the basis for a preliminary injunction | finding that because plaintiff’s motion raised issues entirely different from those presented in his complaint, his allegations could not provide the basis for a preliminary injunction | stating that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction “must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | explaining that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | explaining that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | explaining that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | explaining that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | explaining that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | explaining that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | explaining that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint” | finding that because plaintiff’s motion was based on new assertions of mistreatment that are entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in the original lawsuit, they cannot provide the basis for a preliminary injunction | upholding district court’s denial of motion for preliminary injunction when motion was based on new assertions of misconduct that were different from claim raised | upholding district court denial of motion for preliminary injunction when motion was based on new assertions of misconduct that were different from claim raised | requiring 2| aplaintiffto “establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’ s motion and 3 | the conduct asserted in the complaint” | affirming denial of a preliminary injunction 3 request based on alleged retaliatory conduct unrelated to the basis of a prisoner’s § 1983 4 claim | affirming the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction that “raised issues entirely different fro

Citator

Cited by: 227 opinions

DEVOSE v. HERRINGTON,42 F.3d 470(8th Cir. 1994)

EMANUEL DEVOSE, APPELLANT, v. HERRINGTON, OFFICER, CUMMINS UNIT, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; MASSEY, OFFICER, CUMMINS UNIT, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTION; WILLIS SARGENT, WARDEN, CUMMINS UNIT, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION; JOHN DOE, LPN OF DOCTOR, MAXIMUM SECURITY UNIT, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; PITTS, WARDEN, MAXIMUM SECURITY UNIT, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ENDELL, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION, APPELLEES.

No. 94-2074.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted November 17, 1994.

Decided December 14, 1994.

Page 471

Emanuel Devose, pro se.

David B. Eberhard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, AR, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[1] After being injured in a van accident while being transported between prison units, Arkansas inmate Emanuel Devose brought this42 U.S.C. § 1983action claiming various prison officials denied him adequate medical treatment for his injuries in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Devose later sought a preliminary injunction, contending prison officials had filed trumped-up disciplinary charges against him because of this lawsuit and were making him perform work duties beyond his capabilities. Faced with a motion that raised issues entirely different from those presented in Devose's complaint, the district court concluded that Devose had failed to allege circumstances that entitled him to a preliminary injunction, and denied his motion without a hearing. Devose appeals and we affirm.

[2] A court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits.SeeDataphase Sys., Inc., v. C L Sys., Inc.,640 F.2d 109,113n. 5 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). Thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.See Penn v. San Juan Hosp., Inc.,528 F.2d 1181,1185(10th Cir. 1975). It is self-evident that Devose's motion for temporary relief has nothing to do with preserving the district court's decisionmaking power over the merits of Devose's42 U.S.C. § 1983lawsuit. To the contrary, Devose's motion is based on new assertions of mistreatment that are entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in his inadequate medical treatment lawsuit. Although these new assertions might support additional claims against the same prison officials, they cannot provide the basis for a preliminary injunction in this lawsuit.See Stewart v. UnitedStates I.N.S.,762 F.2d 193,198-99(2d Cir. 1985). Thus, the district court correctly ruled as a matter of law that Devose was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

[3] We affirm.