Wilson v. Northern Correctional Facility, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jarrell Wilson
v. 	Civil No. 19-cv-127-PB
Northern New Hampshire Correctional
Facility Warden
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Jarrell Wilson, filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release from the
C-4 unit into the general prison population. 	Before the court
is Wilson’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 8),
which he filed before this court completed its preliminary
review of his habeas petition. 	Wilson’s motion seeks an order
directing prison officials to give him his “holiday package,”
consisting of “perishable edible items.” 	That motion has been
referred to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation
as to disposition. 	See February 22, 2019 Order.
The type of emergency relief Wilson seeks falls far outside
of the core of the relief available through a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. 	See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637,
643 (2004) (“claims that merely challenge the conditions of a
prisoner’s confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or
injunctive relief, fall outside of [the core of habeas corpus]
and may be brought pursuant to [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 in the first
Case 1:19-cv-00127-PB Document 9 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 3

2
instance”). 	The court does not have jurisdiction to consider
such claims seeking injunctions unrelated to his habeas
petition. 	See Kyricopoulos v. Murphy, No. 16-cv-12431-IT, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46643, at *4, 2017 WL 1190376, at *2 (D. Mass.
Mar. 29, 2017). 	The district judge should deny the motion for a
preliminary injunction on that ground.
Furthermore, Wilson has not made any showing of a
likelihood of irreparable harm. 	See generally Glossip v. Gross,
135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736 (2015) (listing factors pertinent to
motions for preliminary injunctive relief); Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 	Although the food in
the “holiday package” at issue may spoil or be destroyed without
the court’s intervention, those risks do not provide grounds
upon which this court could find a likelihood of irreparable
harm to Wilson. 	Wilson could seek damages as a remedy for that
loss in a civil action, if liability could be established. 	Cf.
Charlesbank Equity Fund II, Ltd. P’ship v. Blinds To Go, Inc.,
370 F.3d 151, 162 (1st Cir. 2004) (“Irreparable harm most often
exists where a party has no adequate remedy at law.”). 	The
district judge should deny the motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. No. 8) on that basis, as well.
Case 1:19-cv-00127-PB Document 9 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 3

3
Conclusion
Wilson’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 8)
should be denied. 	Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the
district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno,
842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 26, 2019
cc: 	Jarrell Wilson, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-00127-PB Document 9 Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 3