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
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should not be published.
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
2
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
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
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
We do not address in this opinion whether Aguilar’s writ-
writing activities on behalf of fellow inmates are constitutionally
protected.
4
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.
5