From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Jun 25, 2010
Civil Action No. 09-2034 (RJL) (D.D.C. Jun. 25, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09-2034 (RJL).

June 25, 2010


MEMORANDUM ORDER


This matter is before the Court on four motions filed by plaintiff, all of which will be denied.

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner who has filed this action to challenge the Federal Bureau of Prisons' policies regarding religious diets. He alleges that prison officials have retaliated against him for having pursued his challenges at the administrative level, and he asks the Court to take judicial notice of documents pertaining to inmate grievances he has filed and a recent disciplinary matter which has resulted in his temporary transfer to a special housing unit. Ordinarily, the Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, such as prior court proceedings. See, e.g., Covad Commc'ns. Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (permitting judicial notice of facts in public records of other proceedings); Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Nos. 03-cv-1959, 06-cv-516, 06-cv-750 08-cv-1273, 2010 WL 1244552, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2010) (taking judicial notice of related proceedings and records in cases before the same court). The matters about which plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice are not matters of public record, and the motions will be denied.

Plaintiff also requests an extension of time "to file his rebuttal to the respondents' response." Mot. for Extension of Time at 1. There is no pending motion or order requiring plaintiff's response at this time, and the motion will be denied as moot.

Lastly, plaintiff requests an injunction against "further retaliations." Mot. to Renew Pet. for an Inj. at 1. The motion will be denied because plaintiff fails to "demonstrate[]: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that [he] would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction." In re Navy Chaplaincy, 516 F. Supp. 2d 119, 122 (D.D.C. 2007) (citations omitted), aff'd, 534 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied sub nom. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Dep't of the Navy, 129 S.Ct. 1918 (2009).

It is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for the court to take judicial notice [# 9, 15], for an extension of time [# 14] and for injunctive relief [# 16] are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Morris v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Jun 25, 2010
Civil Action No. 09-2034 (RJL) (D.D.C. Jun. 25, 2010)
Case details for

Morris v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Case Details

Full title:WAYNE NEVILLE MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Jun 25, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 09-2034 (RJL) (D.D.C. Jun. 25, 2010)

Citing Cases

Slate v. Pub. Defender Serv. for D.C.

seeCausey v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 167 F.Supp.2d 898, 906 (E.D.La.2001) (finding that court may take judicial…

Plummer v. Bottling Grp.

See Compl. at 1 (reciting legal arguments regarding the defendants' treatment and the alleged wrongful…