Free Motion for Preliminary Injunction - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:O6-cv—OO791-SLR Document6 Filed O1/24/2007 Page1of3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND L. Bruton, )
Plaintiff, 3
§ CIV. No. O6—79l—SLR
§l§’?‘C§f?$fAR%¢A’§$"§§: STANLEY 3
W. TAYLOR, and, WARDEN RAPHAEL ) i g y E
YILLIAMB g mavzrmw
Defendant. ) § i,,WHmw*,J ___L __V_ Www; §
HU C RARE
PLAINTIFF"S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONEFD 5e°mTuA
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), plaintiff's
move this Court for a preliminary injunction for the reason set
forth below and in their supporting memorandum of law:
l. There is a reasonable likelihood that plantiff will prevail
on the merits.
For more than 7 months, defendants have denied plaintiff his con—
stitutional right to proceed onward to his MDT Hearing and for-
ward to his Board of Parole Hearing.
2. Plaintiff on April 9, 2006, requested of MS. C. Pettyjohn, of
the Classification Treatment Department, to defer his MDT Hearing
results being sent to the Board of Parole, allowing plaintiff the
opportunity to forefill the recommendations of Board of Parole's
February 8, 2005, m eeting.
3. Ms. C. Pettyjohn, whom was plaintiff's Counselor was trans—
ferred to Delaware Correctional Center, which was a step·up in he
career move. Plaintiff completed the Key Program on or about May
15, 2006.
4. Upon Ms. C. Pettyjohn's transfer, Mrs. Pamela A. Minor, Treat-
ment Administrator had taken the duties of Ms. Pettyjohn upon her
case load. Plaintiff has become un—stisfied with Mrs. Miners ob-
jective out look regarding his Board of Parole procedures.

Case 1:06-cv—O0791-SLR Document 6 Filed O1/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
5. After plaintiff was moved from the Key Program to l~E Pod
for disciplinary reasons and then moved to 2-E Pod, then to 2Q—Po
Mrs. Miner and Ms. Cheryl Reagon, plaintiff's counsler on 2Q—
Pod, in so doing, defendant's, have acted with deliberate in—
difference to a substantial risk of serious harm, in violation
of plaintiff's rights under the Eight Amendment.
6. There is a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the in-
junction is not granted. As a result of their constant refusal to
allow plaintiff to have his MDT Hearing, and to confine plaintiff
on 2Q—Pod which is considered a Pod for trouble makers, plaintiff
has suffered and continue to suffer serious physical and mental i
injuries. Any remedy at law for plaintiff's injuries would be in-
adequate.
7. The threatened injury to plaintiff out—weighs any harm the pro
posed injunction may cause defendant's. The relief that plaintiff
seek is an order compelling fefendants to perform their preexist
ing duties under the U.S. Constitution. To the contrary, the pub
lic interest is well served by protecting the constitutional
rights of all its members.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff request that upon consideration of this
motion and the supporting Memorandum of Law, this Court Order de-
fendants successors, agents, employees, and all persons acting in
concert with them to provide plaintiff with a MDT Hearing and
send the results to the Board of Parole, which will allow plain-
tiff to recieved a Parole Date, and onward to a scheduled Board
of Parole Hearing.
Respectfully Submitted this 22 d day
' , ' n of , .
Raymond L. Bruton

Case1:O6$@%y;_Q?Q791-SLR D0cument6 Filed O1/24/2007 Page30f3
. mwni ;,Y1i¤¤·_ ; · ` V
A "Y'x‘.'?V, -
`
Q —
.;.?#·"\‘*··" l\
, _ E ’<4;;;;# N "’ SSN Q ..:
gif} ‘H"" I `\ _ ·g
. ;{;¤·*. _ 1
mw?} gms EL3;} _\ Q .
—:: ·‘ ‘
2——» .4 _ - Q ,»;-E i .`
Li.! · E 2.
¤= =¤~ ~ ~ "
rss W " -
g ey ’ w .5 I
EE 3% _ ..$
gif TE Q L ?§
»2·Z’ T* “ __; `
"J ’ \;\_ N
` Q
* .--6 :
Q` '-·’ ; 2
l Q i
E) Qi f
%` qc
®~ ks}
gi `*· U’· ,
QW; T3 XQ k
•» `T
·- -— ‘ A
. r .
I. - * ·
, 4 `' ` { `§\
"
l \“ \ ~ g