Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03221/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03221-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 2 4 1992. 

PATRICK M. CANNON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

RICHARD BROWN, U.S.P. Leavenworth ) 

Officer, in his individual capacity ) 

and separately in his official ) 

capacity; EDDIE GEOUGE, u.s.P. ) 

Leavenworth Disciplinary Hearing ) 

Officer, in his individual capacity ) 

and separately in his official ) 

capacity; M. DICKERSON, LT., u.s.P. ) 

Leavenworth Reporting Officer, in his ) 

individual capacity and separately in ) 

his official capacity; KEVIN PARDO, ) 

U.S.P. Leavenworth UDC, in his ) 

individual capacity and separately in ) 

his official capacity; CHARLES B. ) 

FAULKNER, North Central B.O.P. Regional) 

Counsel, in his individual capacity and) 

separately in his official capacity; ) 

JAMES GRAHAM, North Central B.O.P. ) 

BP-10 Grievance Coordinator, in his ) 

individual capacity and separately in ) 

his official capacity; JAMES M. RALPH, ) 

B.O.P. Washington National BP-11 ) 

Grievance Appeals Administrator, in his ) 

individual capacity and separately in ) 

his official capacity; J. MICHAEL ) 

QUINLAN, Director of the Federal Bureau) 

Prisons, in his individual capacity ) 

and separately in his official ) 

capacity; PHARM CHEM INCORPORATED, ) 

Urinalysis Test Agent for the B.O.P., ) 

in their individual capacity and ) 

separately in their official capacity, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3221 

(D.C. No. 91-CV-3117) 

(D. Kansas) 

Appellate Case: 91-3221 Document: 010110226139 Date Filed: 02/24/1992 Page: 1 
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Patrick M. Cannon, a prisoner at U.S.P. Leavenworth, appeals 

the denial of his application for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin prison officials from continuing to deny him social 

visits. The denial of social visits was imposed upon Cannon as a 

sanction, along with the disallowance of 41 days good conduct time 

and 60 days disciplinary segregation, after a urine sample he gave 

tested positive for drugs. The sanctions were imposed on following a disciplinary hearing. 

On April 15, 1991, Cannon filed a multiple count "Bivens" 

action in the district court challenging every point of the 

proceedings, from the testing, to the disciplinary hearing 

process, to the sanctions imposed. His complaint seeks injunctive, mandamus, declaratory, and equitable relief . .Among other 

things, Cannon asserts in his complaint that he has a 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3221 Document: 010110226139 Date Filed: 02/24/1992 Page: 2 
constitutionally protected liberty interest in family visits which 

cannot be restricted by sanctions. 

On June 7, 1991, Cannon filed an "Affidavit in Support of 

Motion to Show Cause - Preliminary Injunctive Relief " . The 

district court construed the document as one seeking injunctive 

relief to prevent the variously named prison officials from denying him visitation with his family, and stated: "Having reviewed 

the pleading, the court finds such relief is not warranted under 

the facts." R. Vol. I, Order of the District Court, June 11, 

1991. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. § 1292(a)(l), and 

AFFIRM. 

In order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the moving party bears the burden of establishing that (1) the moving 

party will suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (2) 

the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; (3) the 

injunction, when issued, will not be adverse to the public interest; and (4) there is substantial likelihood that the moving party 

will eventually prevail on the merits. Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 

F.2d 1487, 1492 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Tri-State Generation & 

Transmission Ass'n Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 805 F.2d 

351, 355 (10th Cir. 1986)). 

As a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, 

see GTE Corp. v. Williams, 731 F.2d 676, 678 (10th Cir. 

1984), the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal. See Penn v. San Juan Hosp., 528 F.2d 1181, 1185 

(10th Cir. 1975); Matzke v. Block, 542 F. Supp. 1107, 

1112-13 (D. Kan. 1982). See generally 11 C. Wright & A. 

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 2948, at 428-29 

& nn. 19-21 (1973 & Supp. 1991) ("It frequently is 

observed that a preliminary injunction is an 

extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3221 Document: 010110226139 Date Filed: 02/24/1992 Page: 3 
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries 

the burden of persuasion." (footnotes omitted)). 

SCFC ILC, INC. v. VISA USA, INC., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098 (10th Cir. 

1991). 

While it may be a debatable point whether Cannon will be irreparably injured if he is denied visits by his family for a year 

(or, more precisely, the several months remaining before the 

expiration of the sanction which was imposed in the spring of last 

year), we are convinced from our review of the record that Cannon 

has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that he will 

prevail on the merits in the underlying action. That is, Cannon 

has failed to raise questions "so serious, substantial, difficult 

and doubtful" as to warrant judicial intervention prior to a 

determination of the suit on its merits. See,~, Otero Savings 

and Loan, 665 F.2d 275, 278 (10th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, Cannon's motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3221 Document: 010110226139 Date Filed: 02/24/1992 Page: 4