Graham v. Deutscher

• Decision Date: 18 November 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-2794,91-2794
• Citation: 979 F.2d 853
• Parties: NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. Gene v. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert DEUTSCHER, in individual capacity, Darlene Moody, in individual capacity, Andrew Prezer, in individual capacity, et. al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 853

979 F.2d 853

NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit.

Gene v. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert DEUTSCHER, in individual capacity, Darlene Moody, in individual capacity, Andrew Prezer, in individual capacity, et. al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-2794.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 18, 1992. ^*

Decided Nov. 20, 1992.

Before BAUER, Chief Judge, CUMMINGS, Circut Judge, and FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Gene Graham sued numerous state and prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming assorted constitutional violations. While his suit was pending in district court, he moved for a preliminary injunction. Graham's motion sought to "restrain[ ] the administrators at the Westville Correctional Center from entering in his record, packet or any tangible thing that will be shown to the Indiana Parole Board, evidence of conduct reports and the disposition of conduct hearings." R.Doc. 46. According to Graham, prison officials had been entering into his record "constitutionally unfounded information," Reply Br. 8, thus hindering his ability to obtain release on parole.

The district court denied Graham's motion, stating that he "failed to satisfy the court of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and that the harm he will suffer absent injunctive relief is greater than the harm the defendants would suffer as a result of injunctive relief." Order 1-2. Graham now brings this interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a).

We set forth the relevant analysis in the preliminary injunction context in Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co.. 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir.1992):

As a threshold matter, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) some likelihood of succeeding on the merits, and (2) that it has "no adequate remedy at law" and will suffer "irreparable harm" if preliminary relief is denied. If the moving party cannot establish either of these prerequisites, a court's inquiry is over and the injunction must be denied.

Id. at 11 (citations omitted).

In this case, Graham claims that he would have been released on parole had it not been for the allegedly unfounded conduct reports put into his record. Plaintiff's Br. 16. For this type of claim, Graham has an adequate remedy at law in the form of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Scruggs v. Moellering, 870 F.2d 376, 379 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 951 (1989); Smith v. Bacon, 699 F.2d 434, 437 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Gardner v. Luckey, 500 F.2d 712, 714...