BOULIER v. BLAUVELT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
WAYNE E. BOULIER, II, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:24-cv-00250-JAW
)
DOUG BLAUVELT, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON
MOTION FOR INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Franklin County Jail, asks the Court to order his transfer
to another facility. (Motion for Injunction, ECF No. 7.) According to Plaintiff, the relief
is necessary because he has limited access to legal materials, and he fears retaliation by jail
officials in response to complaints he has asserted. I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s
motion.
DISCUSSION
In his complaint, Plaintiff claims that on multiple occasions he was subjected to
unlawful strip searches while in custody at the Franklin County Jail. (Complaint at 4-5,
ECF No. 1.) To obtain emergency injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show “(1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the
injunction is withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships,1 and (4) a fit (or lack of
1 Plaintiff must demonstrate that his claimed injury outweighs any harm that granting the injunctive relief
would inflict upon Defendants. Lancor v. Lebanon Hous. Auth., 760 F. 2d 361, 362 (1st Cir. 1985).
Case 1:24-cv-00250-JAW Document 8 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
friction) between the injunction and the public interest.”2 Nieves–Marquez v. Puerto Rico,
353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003); Hoffman v. Sec’y of State of Me., 574 F. Supp. 2d 179,
186 (D. Me. 2008). “The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on
the merits; if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest,
the remaining factors become matters of idle curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc.
v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which governs Plaintiff’s request for immediate
injunctive relief, also provides in pertinent part:
(1) The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). “The requirements of Rule 65(b)(1) are not mere technicalities
but establish minimum due process.” Pelletier v. Department of Corrections, No. 1:22-cv-
00260-JDL, 2022 WL 3700671, at *1 (D.Me. Aug. 26, 2022) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
First, Plaintiff has offered no facts, by affidavit or otherwise, that would support a
finding that he would suffer immediate and irreputable harm before the opposing parties
could be heard in opposition to the motion. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint involves a
different subject matter than the matters Plaintiff seeks to address through his request for
2 Plaintiff must prove that “the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting of the
injunction.” Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir. 1981).
Case 1:24-cv-00250-JAW Document 8 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
injunctive relief. In that way, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to prevail on
his claim against Defendants.
Even if the Court were to assess whether Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is likely
to succeed on the allegations included in the motion, Plaintiff’s motion fails. Plaintiff’s
motion filing consists of unsworn, uncorroborated allegations, which are insufficient to
sustain a motion for emergency injunctive relief.
“Injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of
right.” We the People PAC v. Bellows, 512 F. Supp. 3d 74, 87 (D.Me. 2021) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). 	The Court’s authority to issue preliminary injunctive
relief should be used “sparingly.” Id. (quoting Mass. Coal. of Citizens with Disabilities v.
Civil Def. Agency & Office of Emergency Preparedness, 649 F.2d 71, 76 n.7 (1st Cir.
1981)). Here, Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to prevail on his claim3 and has
not established that the Court should consider the matter without proper notice to the
opposition. 	In short, Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to the immediate
injunctive relief that he seeks.
C ONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for
an injunction.
3 Because likelihood of success on the merits is the “sine qua non” of the injunctive relief analysis, New
Comm Wireless Servs., Inc., 287 F.3d at 9, I discern no reason to assess the other relevant factors.
Case 1:24-cv-00250-JAW Document 8 Filed 07/31/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 31st day of July, 2024.
Case 1:24-cv-00250-JAW Document 8 Filed 07/31/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>