13-3840, 13-3846, 13-3856
White v. Clark, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
9th day of January, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
RALPH K. WINTER,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judge.
________________________________________
John H. White,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 13-3840
Jeffrey Clark, Correctional Officer, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
Richard Rakoce, Sergeant, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________
John White, A/K/A John H. White,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 13-3846
Patricia L. Williams, Corrections Officer, Upstate
Correctional Facility, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
M. Kelsh, Corrections Lieutenant, Upstate
Correctional Facility, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________
John White,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 13-3856
P. Williams, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
R. MacWilliams, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: John H. White, pro se, Malone, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitor General, for
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the
State of New York, Albany, NY.
2
Appeals from orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York (Mordue, J., Sharpe, C.J.). The appeals in 13-3840, 13-3846, and 13-3856 are
consolidated for purposes of this summary order.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the orders of the district court are AFFIRMED.
Appellant John White, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
courts’ orders denying preliminary injunctive relief in three separate, but related, actions filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued prison officials, corrections officers, and medical staff
alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious risks to his safety, and inadequate
medical care. His requests for preliminary injunctive relief were denied, and White appealed.
See White v. Clark, No. 12-cv-986 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2013); White v. Kelsh, No. 12-cv-1775
(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2013); White v. Williams, No. 12-cv-1892 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2013). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the cases, and
the issues on appeal.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate “that it will suffer irreparable
harm absent injunctive relief and either (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the action,
or (2) that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground
for litigation, provided that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party.”
Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2010). We review denials of
preliminary injunctions for abuse of discretion. Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94, 99 (2d
Cir. 2009). A district court has abused its discretion if it has: (1) based its ruling on an erroneous
view of the law; (2) made a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence; or (3) rendered a
decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. See, e.g., id.
3
We find no abuse of discretion in the district courts’ findings that White failed to show a
likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. We therefore affirm for substantially the
reasons stated in the district courts’ thorough and well-reasoned orders. We have considered
White’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
orders of the district court. White’s requests for a video teleconference and the appointment of
counsel are DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4