Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:O6-cv—OO791-SLR Document? Filed O1/24/2007 Page1of4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND L. BRUTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
g CIV. No. 06-791-SLR
MRS- PAMELA A- Mirwr, ) ,...`;I . ..,.,I. .,._
Ms. CHERYL RRGAR, MR. STANLEY > ‘‘’‘ ‘ ‘‘`*‘‘‘‘‘`’ " ‘‘‘`’
W. TAYLOR, and. WARDEN RAPHAEL ) Q i,--Q-L-II .LLL .___ ..L,. grir I
WILLIAMS. )
g JAN EAZRRI §
Defendant. § * g g

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTI 'l •V"‘““m““ ‘‘*’‘
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Bp jeanui
PLAINTIFF SUBMIT THIS Memorandum of law in support of their moti
for a preliminary injunction.
In determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue, a
Court must consider whetherr the party seeking the injunction has
demonstrated that:
(1) it has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of
the underlying Claim; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists; (3)
it will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is
denied. (A) the irreparable harm the party will suffer without in
junctive relief is greater than the harm the opposing party will
suffer if the preliminary injunction is granted; and (5) the pre-
liminary injunction will not harm the public‘s interest.
I. There is a reasonable liklihood that plaintiff’s will succ-
ceed on the merits in this case.
The Third Circuit Court 0f Appeals in 2005, brought to plaintiff'
attention Wilkinson v. Dotson , cite as l25 S.Ct. 1242 (2005).

Case 1 :06-cv—OO791-SLR Document 7 Filed O1/24/2007 Page 2 of 4
ionality of their parole-eligibilty proceedings and parole- suit-
ability proceedings were not collateral attacks on duration of
their confinement required be raised in Habeas Corpus proceedings
rather than in action under 1983 seeking declaratory and injunc-
tive relief; although prisoners sought relief that would inva-
lidate state procedures used to deny parole eligibility and
suitability, neither sought an injunction, ordering his immed-
iate or speedier release into the Community, 28 U.S.C.A. 225A (a)
U.S.C.A.l1983.
Here, plaintiff has the constitutional right to request a parole
hearing in accordance with the parole authority and procedure as
stipulated in 11 Qel. Q. A3d7, revised July 1, 1992.
Here, as plaintiff's verified complaint shows, plaintiff has been
denied access to the MDT Board to complete the process which will
allow plaintiff to proceed to the Board of Parole after the MDT
Board forwards it decision to the State Board of Parole.
Here, defendant's has decided to control and deny plaintiff's his
constitutional right to a Parole Hearing.
Here, plaintiff is allowed by the Parole Boards Order that plain-
tiff would be eligible to be reheard for parole consideratggn * .
upon successful completion of the Key Program. In addition, there
must be a resollution of instutional write-ups. Plaintiff may
file a new application for parole consideration in accordance
with the parole authority and procedure as stipulated in 11 Bel
Q_. h3&7, revised July i 1992.

Case 1:06-cv—O0791-SLR Document 7 Filed O1/24/2007 Page 3 of 4
Here, defendant's has decided that plaintiff's parole procedures
are within their control. Defendant's has completely ignored the
fact why plaintiff had the MDT Board's decision defferred, be-
cause he lack the completion of an AVP Program. Once plaintiff y
had accomplished and remedied that requirement, plaintiff lifted I
his defferred status and tried to move forward to his parole date
and Board of Parole Hearing, defendant's know they do not have th
legal right or authority to deny plaintiff's access to the MDT
Board , nevertheless, defendant 's have failed to respond reason-
ably. They have refused to provide plaintiff with a MDT Hearing.
Their refusal amounts to deliberate in difference, in violation
of plaintiff's rights under the Eight Ammendment. And defendant's
are in violation of plaintiff's léth Ammendments of his due pro-
cess and the 5th Ammendments to the Federal U.S. Constitution.
ll Plaintiff face a SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF IRREPARABLE HARM:
lrreparable harm will result unless an injunction is granted in
this case. As a result of being denied an opportunity to move
forward to the MDT Board Hearing, plaintiff is a Chronic High
Blood user of medicine. The infirmary has been diagnose by the
Federal U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division,from
Washington, DC., mention how terrible these Delaware prisons are
being run. The water is being drank by the inmate population, how
ever, the officers here are advised to not drink the water or
eat the food at this facility. Plaintiff has the opportunity to
leave this institution and defendant's through their ill advised
decisions are denying plaintiff his constitutional right to go

Case 1:06-cv—O0791-SLR » Document 7 Filed O1/24/2007 Page 4 of 4
before the parole board.
Here, the water plaintiff shower with is causing skin problems
beyond plaintiff's imagination. Plaintiff has the Constitutional
right to expect parole, and not to be denied his right because of
anger and hatered directed to plaintiff from DOC employees and
agents.
Conclusion;
For these reasons, plaintiff asks this Court to Order defendant's
their successors, agents, employees, and all persons acting in
concert with them to provide plaintiff at this institution, H. R.
Y. C. I., with the MDT Hearing that they have been denying, and
to gjvg the results of that hearing to the Board of Parole, im-
mediately.
Respectfully Submitted, this 22nd day of January 2007
Y _ }
RAYMOND L. BRUTON