Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv—00791-SLR Document 19 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND L. BRUTON, )
Plaintiff, )
v. g Civ. Action No. 06-791-SLR
MRS. PAMELA A. MINOR, MRS. g
CHERYL REGAN, MR. STANLEY W. )
TAYLOR, and WARDEN RAPHAEL )
WILLIAMS, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Vlhlmington this |‘;"rday of June, 2007, having reviewed the motion for
injunctive relief, and defendants’ response thereto;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for injunctive relief (D.I. 6) is denied as moot, for
the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, tiled a motion for injunctive relief to order defendants to
provide him with a Multi-Disciplinary Team ("MDT") hearing and to send the results to
the Delaware Board of Parole. (D.I. 6) Plaintiff states this will allow him to receive a
parole date and move onward to a scheduled Board of Parole hearing. Q. The motion
for injunctive relief was served upon defendants at the same time as the complaint and
it ordered defendants to file a response to the motion. (D.I. 10) Defendants filed their
response on June 7, 2007. (D.I. 18)
2. Standard of Review. When considering a motion for a preliminary injunction
plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will

Case 1:06-cv—00791-SLB Document 19 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
result in irreparable harm; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to
the defendant(s); and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. Maldonado v.
Houstoun, 157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1997). "[A]n injunction may not be used simply to
eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights."
Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.
1980)(quoting Holiday lnns of Am., Inc. v. B & B Corp., 409 F.2d 614, 618 (3d Cir.
1969)). "The relevant inquiry is whether the movant is in danger of suffering irreparable
harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be issued." Sl Handling Sys., Inc. v.
Hcgey, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985).
3. Discussion. Plaintiffs motion is moot. He has already received the relief he
requested. Defendants indicate that plaintiff attended a hearing before the MDT Board
on March 7, 2007. (D.I. 18, at 5) Further, plaintiff is scheduled to appear before the
Board of Parole within the near future. g at 6. Defendants did not disclose the date of
the parole hearing due to security concerns. gl; inasmuch as the motion is moot, the
court sees no need to discuss the elements necessary for injunctive relief.
4. Conclusion. Plaintiffs motion is moot as he has received the relief he
sought. Plaintiff is given leave to file a new motion for injunctive relief should the
hearing before the Board of Parole fail to take place within the next six months. Based
upon the foregoing, the motion for injunctive relief (D.|. 6) is denied as moot.

.. 2 -