UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY LURAY REDDELL,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 09-12781

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

BLAINE LAFLER,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Petitioner Bobby Luray Reddell has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition

challenging his state conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. He pleaded

guilty to the offense and was sentenced to prison for a minimum of nine years, eight

months and for a maximum of thirty years. The habeas petition alleges that the plea

agreement was illusory, that the Michigan Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed his

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and that Petitioner was denied a hearing on the issue of

competence to stand trial or plead guilty. 

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief. 

Petitioner claims that members of the Michigan Parole Board recently denied him

release on parole and recommended sex offender therapy. Petitioner alleges that he

must admit guilt in his criminal case in order to complete sex offender therapy and if he

refuses to admit guilt, he will be expelled from group therapy and denied parole in the

future. He seeks to have the Court order Respondent to show cause why he should

not be enjoined from compelling Petitioner to violate his right against self incrimination

2:09-cv-12781-VAR-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 10/19/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 40
2

during the pendency of this habeas action. 

“The purpose of a temporary restraining order, like a preliminary injunction, is to

protect against irreparable injury and preserve the status quo until the district court

renders a meaningful decision on the merits.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403

F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Canal Auth. of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d

567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974)). Thus, a preliminary injunction is appropriate when granting

“intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De

Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). 

Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief deals with a matter that is completely

unrelated to the issues in the habeas petition. It lies “wholly outside the issues in the

suit” and involves an issue “which in no circumstances can be dealt with in any final

injunction that may be entered. “ Id. Consequently, preliminary injunctive relief would

not preserve the status quo pending a hearing on the merits. “The fact that [Petitioner]

has a lawsuit pending does not entitle him to use that action as a launching pad for

subsequent unrelated requests for injunctive relief.” Higgason v. Swihart, 1994 WL

818229, at *5 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 1994) (unpublished). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion

for injunctive relief [Dkt. #5] is DENIED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 19, 2009

2:09-cv-12781-VAR-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 10/19/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 41
3

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Bobby Luray Reddell by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on October 19, 2009.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12781-VAR-DAS Doc # 6 Filed 10/19/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 42