Ibenyenwa v. TX Bd of Cr Justice ( 2021 )

Case: 19-40894 Document: 00515814207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 8, 2021
No. 19-40894
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Michael Jerrial Ibenyenwa,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Trina D. Sterling-
Sims,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:19-CV-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Michael Jerrial
Ibenyenwa, Texas prisoner # 1638105, challenges an order entered by the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40894 Document: 00515814207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2021
No. 19-40894
district court denying his motions for a preliminary injunction. We have
jurisdiction to review this interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
A movant is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary
injunction only if he establishes
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a
substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not
issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied
outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted,
and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the
public interest.
Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009). The party seeking the
preliminary injunction has the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.
Bluefield Water Ass’n v. City of Starkville, Miss., 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir.
2009). Our review of the district court’s determinations as to each factor is
deferential, with facts left undisturbed unless clearly erroneous, conclusions
of law reviewed de novo, and the ultimate decision reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Id.Ibenyenwa argues that the district court abused its discretion in
determining that he failed to show a substantial likelihood on the success of
the merits of his claims. He asserts that he received notice that his July 2018
Rolling Stone magazine was denied after it was reviewed by the prison
mailroom staff and found to contain an image of a nude child. He elected to
have the magazine forwarded to someone outside of the prison, who then
mailed him 86 pages of photocopies of that same magazine, albeit with the
image of the child edited out. These photocopies of the magazine were also
withheld by the prison mailroom staff on the ground that the magazine was
previously denied. It is this subsequent denial of the photocopies from which
the prohibited picture had been removed that Ibenyenwa argues was an
2
Case: 19-40894 Document: 00515814207 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2021
No. 19-40894
arbitrary and irrational decision that violated his rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.
When evaluating First Amendment challenges to prison policies we
consider the following factors:
(1) whether the regulation is “rationally related” to a
legitimate penological goal; (2) whether alternative means of
exercising First Amendment rights remain open; (3) the
impact that accommodating the asserted right will have on
other prisoners and prison employees; and (4) whether there
are easy and obvious alternative means of accommodating the
asserted right.
Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201, 214 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted). Ibenyenwa has not demonstrated, in light of the above factors, that
he has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on his claims. See Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 418 (1989); Prison Legal News, 683 F.3d at 208-21. We
therefore decline to consider whether Ibenyenwa faces a substantial threat of
irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued that would outweigh any harm
that will result if the injunction is granted or whether the injunction would
not disserve the public interest. Byrum, 566 F.3d at 445; see also Bluefield
Water Ass’n, 577 F.3d at 253.
The order denying Ibenyenwa’s motions for a preliminary injunction
is AFFIRMED.
3