Summary
finding that abstention doctrines did not preclude claim for preliminary injunction and § 1983 claims of First Amendment retaliation brought by ISP participant
Summary of this case from Smart v. Admin. Office of the CourtsOpinion
Civil Action No. 02-4331 (JEI)
January 24, 2003
JOHN VINCENT SAYKANIC, Esq., Clifton, New Jersey., Attorney for the Plaintiff.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION, By: EDWARD L. BAROCAS, Esq., Newark, New Jersey., Amicus Curiae for the Plaintiff.
DAVID SAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY, By: CHRISTOPHER C. JOSEPHSON, Deputy Attorney General, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, New Jersey., Attorney for Defendants
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter having appeared before the Court upon Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, the Court having reviewed the submissions of the parties and having heard oral argument, for the reasons set forth in an opinion which findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated herein by reference, and for good cause appearing,
ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction reinstating him to the Intensive Supervision Program is GRANTED.
2. Defendants are PROHIBITED from removing the Plaintiff from ISP for any future violations unless they first give the Plaintiff forty-eight (48) hours notice of their intentions. Should there be the potential for immediate harm to the public good if the Plaintiff is not removed from ISP the Defendants may make an emergency motion with this Court.