Court Opinion

ID: 2963988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:39.572384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:45.980722
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 29, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1915

                                  JOHN J. SULLIVAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            MICHAEL J. CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            John J. Sullivan on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Jeffrey  R. Howard,  Attorney General,  Stephen J.  Judge,  Senior
            __________________                      _________________
        Assistant  Attorney  General,  and  Martin  P.  Honigberg,   Assistant
                                            _____________________
        Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    We  have   carefully  reviewed  the
                      ___________

            parties' briefs  and the record, including  the transcript of

            the  May 5,  1995 hearing,  and  affirm the  district court's

            judgment denying  appellant John J. Sullivan's  request for a

            preliminary injunction.   We rely on  essentially the reasons

            set forth  in the court's Order, dated July 11, 1995.  We add

            the two following comments.

                      1.   The  district court  has "broad  authority" in

            applying  to a given  case the  four factors  for determining

            whether  to   grant   a  preliminary   injunction.     United
                                                                   ______

            Steelworkers v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 1987).
            ____________    _____________

            Appellant argues that the court here abused its discretion by

            only considering  whether appellant was likely  to succeed in

            demonstrating that "but for" the unconstitutional retaliatory

            motive,  he would not have been transferred.  See McDonald v.
                                                          ___ ________

            Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st  Cir. 1979).  We disagree.  Where,
            ____

            as  here, the court's factual findings in this regard are not

            clearly erroneous,  Roselli v.  Affleck, 508 F.2d  1277, 1280
                                _______     _______

            (1st Cir. 1974) (tentative  findings of fact on a  motion for

            preliminary  injunction are  entitled to  the  normal, strong

            presumption of  correctness), there  is no reason  for it  to

            proceed to consider public  interest or the risks of  harm to

            either party.  Cf. Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 815, 820-21
                           ___ _______    ____

            (1st Cir. 1988) (affirming the  denial of an injunction based

            only on likelihood of success on the merits).

                                         -3-

                      2.  Appellant claims that the district court should

            have determined whether he likely would succeed on the merits

            of  all of  his  claims, not  only  the retaliatory  transfer
                ___

            claim.  However,  appellant does not  explain, and we  cannot

            see, how  consideration of  all the  claims could  change the

            result  the district  court reached.   That  is, even  if the

            court found appellant  likely to  succeed on one  or more  of

            these  claims,  he  still  would  not  be   entitled  to  the

            injunction he seeks.

                      Affirmed.  Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -4-