IBENYENWA v. TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-04-08No. No. 19-40894

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order denying Ibenyenwa's motions for a preliminary injunction, finding he failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his First and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the prison's withholding of the edited magazine materials.

Michael Ibenyenwa, a Texas inmate, filed a civil rights lawsuit challenging a prison mailroom decision to withhold photocopied pages from a Rolling Stone magazine. The original magazine had been denied because it contained an image of a nude child. Ibenyenwa arranged to have someone outside the prison remove that image and mail him 86 photocopied pages of the edited magazine, but prison staff again withheld the material based on the magazine's prior rejection. Ibenyenwa argued this second denial violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as arbitrary and irrational.

The appellate court reviewed the district court's denial of Ibenyenwa's request for a preliminary injunction. Applying the standard test for such relief, the court examined whether Ibenyenwa showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by assessing whether the prison's policy was rationally related to legitimate penological interests, whether alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights remained available, the impact on other inmates and staff, and whether easy alternatives existed. The court determined Ibenyenwa failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on his constitutional claims and therefore did not need to address the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether prison mailroom denial of edited magazine pages violated First Amendment rights
Whether the ban was rationally related to legitimate penological goals
Whether alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights remained available to the prisoner

Procedural posture

Ibenyenwa appealed the district court's denial of his motions for a preliminary injunction in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

In this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Michael Jerrial Ibenyenwa, Texas prisoner # 1638105, challenges an order entered by the 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 Assn v. City of Starkville, Miss., 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2009). Our review of the district courts 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 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, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (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 Assn, 577 F.3d at 253.

The order denying Ibenyenwas motions for a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* 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.