643 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2009), C. A. 09-1417 (RMU), Penland v. Mabus

Docket NºCivil Action : 09-1417 (RMU), 09-1418(RMU).
Citation643 F.Supp.2d 14
Opinion JudgeRICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.
Party NameSyneeda L. PENLAND, Petitioner, v. Raymond E. MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Respondent. Syneeda L. Penland, Petitioner, v. Raymond E. Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, Respondent.
AttorneyEsthus Christopher Amos, Columbia, MD, for Petitioner.
Case DateAugust 07, 2009
CourtUnited States District Courts, District of Columbia

Page 14

643 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2009)

Syneeda L. PENLAND, Petitioner,

v.

Raymond E. MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Respondent.

Syneeda L. Penland, Petitioner,

v.

Raymond E. Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, Respondent.

Civil Action Nos.: 09-1417 (RMU), 09-1418(RMU).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

August 7, 2009

Page 15

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 16

Esthus Christopher Amos, Columbia, MD, for Petitioner.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENYING THE PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re Document No.: 2

Re Document No.: 3

RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court on the petitioner's motions for a preliminary injunction. The petitioner, a former Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy, commenced these consolidated actions protesting her discharge from the Navy following a general court-martial. The petitioner seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the Navy to restore her to active duty status pending the outcome of the litigation on the merits. Because the petitioner has demonstrated neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor irreparable harm absent interim injunctive relief, the court denies the petitioner's motions.

II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 2008, the petitioner was convicted in a general court-martial of four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (" UCMJ" ): failure to obey a lawful order, making a false official statement, conduct unbecoming an officer and adultery. Petr's Mot. at 2; Resp.'s Opp'n at 1.1 Specifically, the petitioner was convicted

Page 17

of having a sexual relationship with a married subordinate officer, of harassing the subordinate officer's spouse (an active duty enlisted sailor) and of lying about her conduct. Petr's Mot. at 2; Resp.'s Opp'n at 1. The petitioner maintains that the prosecution constituted reprisal for complaints that she made against her superior officer regarding financial improprieties within her command. Petr's Mot. at 2. As a result of her conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to serve sixty days in confinement and was fined $9,000. Petr's Habeas Pet. at 2; Resp.'s Opp'n at 2. The petitioner ultimately served forty-five days in confinement and was released. Petr's Habeas Pet. at 2.

The petitioner appealed her conviction to the General Courts-Martial Convening Authority (" GMCA" ), citing numerous alleged errors that marred the court-martial proceedings, including unlawful command influence, ineffective assistance of counsel and various procedural and evidentiary errors. Id.; Resp.'s Opp'n at 3. The GMCA declined to reverse the petitioner's conviction. Petr's Habeas Pet. at 2; Resp.'s Opp'n at 4. The matter was then referred to the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy (" JAG" ), which investigated the petitioner's allegations and upheld the conviction in February 2009. Petr's Habeas Pet. at 2-3; Resp.'s Opp'n at 4.

Following the court-martial conviction, the Navy ordered the petitioner to show cause before a three-member board of inquiry (" BOI" ) why she should not be separated from the Navy because of her conviction and allegedly substandard performance. Petr's Mot. at 2; Resp.'s Opp'n at 2. The BOI concluded that the petitioner should be separated from the Navy. Petr's Mot. at 2; Resp.'s Opp'n at 2. On June 29, 2009, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs signed the petitioner's discharge order, Resp.'s Opp'n at 2, and the petitioner's separation from the Navy was scheduled to take effect on July 31, 2009, Petr's Mot. at 1.

On July 29, 2009, the petitioner commenced these actions. In Civil Action No. 09-1417, the petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the petitioner's separation violated Navy regulations governing the discharge of servicemen requiring medical attention.2 See generally Petr's Mandamus Pet. The petitioner requests that the court " enter a Writ of Mandamus ordering Secretary of the Navy Raymond E. Mabus, Jr. to overturn his earlier decision ... that petitioner be separated from active duty ... on July 31, 2009." Id. at 9.

In Civil Action No. 09-1418, the petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, citing various procedural and substantive errors that occurred during her court martial proceedings.3 See generally Petr's Habeas Pet. The petitioner " moves this Court to grant her petition for Habeas Corpus relief by dismissing all four of her criminal convictions, overturning the verdict of the administrative separation board, and ordering [Secretary Mabus] to retain [her] on active duty." Id. at 29.

Page 18

On the same day she filed these petitions, the petitioner filed motions in both actions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. See generally Petr's Mot.; Petr's 1418 Mot. The court set an expedited briefing schedule and, on July 30, 2009, denied the petitioner's requests for a temporary restraining order. See Minute Order (July 30, 2009). The court now turns to the petitioner's motions for preliminary injunctive relief.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard for a Preliminary Injunction

This court may issue interim injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates " [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (citing Munaf v. Geren, __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2207, 2218-19, 171 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008)). It is particularly important for the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Cf. Benten v. Kessler, 505 U.S. 1084, 1085, 112 S.Ct. 2929, 120 L.Ed.2d 926 (1992) (per curiam). Indeed, absent a " substantial indication" of likely success on the merits, " there would be no justification for the court's intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review." Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 38 F.Supp.2d 114, 140 (D.D.C.1999) (internal quotation omitted).

The other critical factor in the injunctive relief analysis is irreparable injury. A movant must " demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction." Winter, 129...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • 733 F.Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C. 2010), C. A. 10-534 (CKK), Sataki v. Broadcasting Bd. of Governors
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 7 Julio 2010
    ...injunction, she will lose access to health care benefits and critically needed medical treatment upon discharge, cf. Penland v. Mabus, 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 22 (D.D.C.2009) (denying injunctive relief where plaintiff did not demonstrate " that she would be denied access to critical medical ......
  • Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors, 070710 DCDC, 10-534 (CKK)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 7 Julio 2010
    ...injunction, she will lose access to health care benefits and critically needed medical treatment upon discharge, cf. Penland v. Mabus, 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 22 (D.D.C. 2009) (denying injunctive relief where plaintiff did not demonstrate “that she would be denied access to critical medical care ......
  • Spadone v. McHugh, 020812 DCDC, 11-1601 (RWR)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 8 Febrero 2012
    ...be limited to "genuinely extraordinary situation[s]." Sampson v. Murray , 415 U.S. 61 (1974); see also Penland v. Mabus , 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 21 (D.D.C. 2009). A plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion by a clear showing 1) of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2)......
  • 842 F.Supp.2d 295 (D.D.C. 2012), C. A. 11-1601 (RWR), Spadone v. McHugh
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 8 Febrero 2012
    ...extraordinary situation[s]." Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974); see also Penland v. Mabus, 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 21 (D.D.C.2009). A plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion by a clear showing 1) of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2) of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • 733 F.Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C. 2010), C. A. 10-534 (CKK), Sataki v. Broadcasting Bd. of Governors
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 7 Julio 2010
    ...injunction, she will lose access to health care benefits and critically needed medical treatment upon discharge, cf. Penland v. Mabus, 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 22 (D.D.C.2009) (denying injunctive relief where plaintiff did not demonstrate " that she would be denied access to critical medical ......
  • Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors, 070710 DCDC, 10-534 (CKK)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 7 Julio 2010
    ...injunction, she will lose access to health care benefits and critically needed medical treatment upon discharge, cf. Penland v. Mabus, 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 22 (D.D.C. 2009) (denying injunctive relief where plaintiff did not demonstrate “that she would be denied access to critical medical care ......
  • Spadone v. McHugh, 020812 DCDC, 11-1601 (RWR)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 8 Febrero 2012
    ...be limited to "genuinely extraordinary situation[s]." Sampson v. Murray , 415 U.S. 61 (1974); see also Penland v. Mabus , 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 21 (D.D.C. 2009). A plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion by a clear showing 1) of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2)......
  • 842 F.Supp.2d 295 (D.D.C. 2012), C. A. 11-1601 (RWR), Spadone v. McHugh
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 8 Febrero 2012
    ...extraordinary situation[s]." Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974); see also Penland v. Mabus, 643 F.Supp.2d 14, 21 (D.D.C.2009). A plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion by a clear showing 1) of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2) of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results