Opinion ID: 436135
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion to Vacate or Modify the Preliminary

Text: Injunction 9 Trela did not appeal from the entry of the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, our review of the denial of his motion to vacate or modify the injunction does not extend to the propriety of the entry of the injunction itself. Instead, we are limited to inquiring whether Trela has demonstrated that changed circumstances make the continuation of the injunction inequitable. Merrell-National Labor, Inc. v. Zenith Labor, Inc., 579 F.2d 786 (3d Cir.1978); Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers, 534 F.2d 735, 750 (7th Cir.1976). 10 Trela presented no new facts to the district court which would justify modification of the preliminary injunction. Instead, he repeated his view that the law did not support entry of the injunction in the first place. However, [t]he motion [to modify an injunction] does not force the trial judge to permit relitigation of his original determination that the injunction should issue, Merrell-National Labor, supra, 579 F.2d at 791, and the district court was correct in refusing to allow such relitigation in this case. 11 Trela also argues that the preliminary injunction should be vacated because he did not have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the preliminary injunction hearing. An examination of the record, however, demonstrates that Trela actively participated in the hearing, albeit pro se. Alternatively, Trela argues that the district court improperly received illegally seized evidence at the hearing. The evidence of which Trela complains was obtained through a search conducted by U.S. Marshals pursuant to a valid seizure order entered October 27, 1981. Even assuming, arguendo, that there was some impropriety in the seizure of Trela's property on October 27, it is clear that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require in civil cases that the exclusionary rule be extended to situations where private parties seek to introduce evidence obtained through unauthorized searches made by state officials. Honeycutt v. Aetna Insurance Co., 510 F.2d 340, 349 (7th Cir.) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2416, 44 L.Ed.2d 679 (1975). 12 We find no error in the district court's refusal to vacate or modify the preliminary injunction.