United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-40894

Summary Calendar

Michael Jerrial Ibenyenwa, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Trina D. SterlingSims, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:19-CV-1 

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

In this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Michael Jerrial 

Ibenyenwa, Texas prisoner # 1638105, challenges an order entered by the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40894 Document: 00515814207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2021
No. 19-40894

2

district court denying his motions for a preliminary injunction. We have 

jurisdiction to review this interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

A movant is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary 

injunction only if he establishes 

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a 

substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not 

issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied 

outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, 

and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the 

public interest.

Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009). The party seeking the 

preliminary injunction has the burden of persuasion on all four requirements. 

Bluefield Water Ass’n v. City of Starkville, Miss., 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 

2009). Our review of the district court’s determinations as to each factor is 

deferential, with facts left undisturbed unless clearly erroneous, conclusions 

of law reviewed de novo, and the ultimate decision reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. Id.

Ibenyenwa argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

determining that he failed to show a substantial likelihood on the success of 

the merits of his claims. He asserts that he received notice that his July 2018 

Rolling Stone magazine was denied after it was reviewed by the prison 

mailroom staff and found to contain an image of a nude child. He elected to

have the magazine forwarded to someone outside of the prison, who then 

mailed him 86 pages of photocopies of that same magazine, albeit with the 

image of the child edited out. These photocopies of the magazine were also 

withheld by the prison mailroom staff on the ground that the magazine was 

previously denied. It is thissubsequent denial of the photocopies from which

the prohibited picture had been removed that Ibenyenwa argues was an 

Case: 19-40894 Document: 00515814207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2021
No. 19-40894

3

arbitrary and irrational decision that violated his rights under the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments.

When evaluating First Amendment challenges to prison policies we

consider the following factors:

(1) whether the regulation is “rationally related” to a 

legitimate penological goal; (2) whether alternative means of 

exercising First Amendment rights remain open; (3) the 

impact that accommodating the asserted right will have on 

other prisoners and prison employees; and (4) whether there 

are easy and obvious alternative means of accommodating the 

asserted right.

Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201, 214 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation 

omitted). Ibenyenwa has not demonstrated, in light of the above factors, that 

he has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on his claims. See Thornburgh v. 

Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 418 (1989); Prison Legal News, 683 F.3d at 208-21. We 

therefore decline to consider whether Ibenyenwa faces a substantial threat of 

irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued that would outweigh any harm 

that will result if the injunction is granted or whether the injunction would 

not disserve the public interest. Byrum, 566 F.3d at 445; see also Bluefield 

Water Ass’n, 577 F.3d at 253. 

The order denying Ibenyenwa’s motions for a preliminary injunction 

is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-40894 Document: 00515814207 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2021