Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.”

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.95-40330

Summary Calendar

TIMOTHY A. AGUILAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. SHAW, JR., Warden; FNU TILLERY,

Captain; FNU GIDDENS, Captain; JOHN DOE;

UNIDENTIFIED FOX; DONALD CHASTAIN; RICKY

JONES,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:94-CV-1042)

(September 12, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy A. Aguilar, a Texas state prisoner, appeals a

magistrate judge’s order denying his requests for preliminary

injunctive relief in his section 1983 suit. Finding no error we
2

affirm.

Background

Aguilar invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pro se and in forma

pauperis, alleging that several prison administrators and guards

conspired to subject him to disciplinary sanctions and additional

criminal culpability. Baker asserts that this conspiracy, a

retaliation for his writ-writing activities on behalf of other

inmates, is manifested by the filing of falsified disciplinary

reports, several harassing searches of his cell, an attempt by

prison guards to plant marihuana in his cell, and denying him

permission to render telephonic legal assistance to other inmates.

Ancillary to his primary lawsuit, Aguilar filed several

motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief against what he

portrayed as an escalating pattern of retaliation. The magistrate

judge, final arbiter by consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), denied

Aguilar’s requests for injunctive relief. Aguilar appealed this

decision, formally moving the court to expedite his appeal.

Analysis

Before a preliminary injunction may issue the trial court must

find that there exists (1) a substantial likelihood of success on

the merits, (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the

injunction will result in irreparable injury, (3) that the

threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might

cause to the opposing party, and (4) that the injunction will not
 Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1991) (citation

omitted).

 Black Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, Tex., 905 F.2d

63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).

 We elect to consider the trial court’s judgments in globo

because in each of his three motions Aguilar requested essentially

the same relief, i.e. a preliminary injunction against further

retaliatory action by the defendants.

3

disserve the public interest.1 “The denial of a preliminary

injunction will be upheld where the movant has failed sufficiently

to establish any one of the four criteria.”2 The magistrate

judge’s determinations present a mixed question of law and fact; we

review findings of fact for clear error and legal conclusions de

novo.

In denying Aguilar’s motions3 the trial court found, inter

alia, that Aguilar failed to demonstrate a substantial threat of

irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. We agree.

Aguilar hints in his brief and in several earlier pleadings

that he fears that his life may be in danger. In his allegations

he has failed, however, to associate this premonition of doom to

any specific statement or action attributable to any prison

official. Such mere conclusional allegations fail to state a

substantial threat of injury.

Aguilar also claims that in the absence of a preliminary

injunction prison guards, while conducting future searches of his

cell, might alter or destroy his legal materials, effectively

undermining his ability to provide legal assistance to fellow
 We do not address in this opinion whether Aguilar’s writwriting activities on behalf of fellow inmates are constitutionally

protected.

4

inmates.4 The magistrate judge concluded that there was no

likelihood that the harassing searches of Aguilar’s cell were

likely to be repeated and therefore no substantial threat of injury

existed. Aguilar has made only one allegation concerning damage to

his legal materials, specifically that during an October search of

his cell a page of one of his legal briefs was torn out and

“crumpled.” Our review of the record reveals no clear error in the

magistrate judge’s finding in this regard.

Aguilar next asserts that the actions of the prison officials

place him in danger of losing good time credits or suffering an

additional criminal conviction, both of which would serve to

lengthen his period of incarceration. In his complaint, however,

he avers that he currently is serving a 25-year sentence which

began in June of 1993. Even assuming a maximum good time

allowance, it is beyond peradventure to expect that Aguilar will

not be eligible for release from custody prior to the resolution of

his case. Any potential injury would therefore not occur until

after final judgment. Under those circumstances, a preliminary

injunction is not warranted.

Finally, Aguilar suggests that if the conspiracy succeeds he

may lose his privileged status as a trustee. Even if we were to

consider the loss of such privileges a “harm,” Aguilar has failed

to show why such an injury could not be remedied by a damages

award, the usual remedy when appropriate in such cases, with
5

permanent injunctive relief. Stripped to essentials, Aguilar has

failed to demonstrate the irreparable nature of any threatened

harm.

The magistrate judge did not err in denying Aguilar’s motions.

Aguilar’s motion to expedite his appeal is denied as moot.

The judgment of the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED.