Griffin v. US Bankruptcy Court - KY, Judge et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John M. Griffin
v. Civ. No. 24-cv-239-SE-AJ
Hon. Alan C. Stout, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff John M. Griffin, appearing pro se, has sued a
Federal Bankruptcy Court Judge and several attorneys involved in
a case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, in which Mr. Griffin was a creditor. See
Compl. (Doc. No. 1); see also In Re: US Cavalry Store, Inc., No.
13-31315, Order (Doc. No. 757) at 1 n.1 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar.
13, 2024) (“the Kentucky case”). Presently before the court is
Mr. Griffin’s motion for an injunction (Doc. No. 3) to prevent
the destruction of certain documents related to the Kentucky
case. The motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR 72.1. As explained more fully
below, the court recommends that Mr. Griffin’s motion be denied.
Standard of Review
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy that is never awarded as of right.” Peoples Fed. Sav.
Bank v. People's United Bank, 672 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2012)
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 1 of 9

2
(quoting Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now,
Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011)). A judge should grant
such injunctive relief “sparingly.” Mass. Coal. of Citizens with
Disabilities v. Civil Def. Agency & Off. of Emergency
Preparedness, 649 F.2d 71, 76 n.7 (1st Cir. 1981).
To determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction a court
must analyze four factors:
(1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the
potential for irreparable harm [to the movant] if the
injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant
impositions, i.e., the hardship to the nonmovant if
enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the movant
if no injunction issues; and (4) the effect (if any)
of the court's ruling on the public interest.
Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13,
17-18 (1st Cir. 2006) (alteration in original)
(quoting Bl(a)ck Tea Soc'y v. City of Boston, 378 F.3d
8, 11 (1st Cir. 2004)).
“The party seeking the preliminary injunction bears the
burden of establishing that these four factors weigh in its
favor.” Id. at 18. “[T]rial courts have wide discretion in
making judgments regarding the appropriateness of such relief.”
Francisco Sánchez v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 572 F.3d 1, 14 (1st
Cir. 2009).
“The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood
of success on the merits: if the moving party cannot demonstrate
that he is likely to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors
become matters of idle curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs.,
Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002); see also
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 2 of 9

3
Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Trabajadores v. Fortuño, 699 F.3d 1,
7 (1st Cir. 2012) (confirming that this factor is “the most
important part of the preliminary injunction assessment”
(quoting Jean v. Mass. State Police, 492 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir.
2007))).
Factual Background and Prior Proceedings
This lawsuit stems from Mr. Griffin’s participation in two
other suits. First, as mentioned above, Mr. Griffin was a
creditor in the Kentucky bankruptcy suit. Previously, he was a
plaintiff in a Georgia state court suit, which was resolved
against him, both on summary judgment at the trial court, and
again on appeal. See Griffin v. U.S. Cavalry, Inc., Civ. No. 10-
CV-127, Order on Summary Judgment, (Ga. Super., Chattahoochie
Cnty. Sept. 14, 2018), app. dismissed, No. A19A0941 (Ga. Ct.
App. Apr. 30, 2019) (“the Georgia case”).
In 2023, towards the end of the Kentucky bankruptcy
proceedings – which commenced in 2013 -- an issue arose as to
the disposition of a cache of the debtor’s business records
being kept in a storage facility. The Bankruptcy Court judge, a
defendant in this case, described the chronology as follows:
Over ten years after the filing of this
bankruptcy case, on May 3, 2023, Ms. Bryant filed a
Motion to Authorize Destruction of Records wherein she
indicated that the estate was holding business records
dating back to 1992. Ms. Bryant sought authority to
destroy these records.
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 3 of 9

4
On May 6, 2023, Mr. Griffin filed a pro se
objection to the motion stating that he needed some of
the records in regard to state court litigation in
Georgia. Specifically, he stated that “he would have
won his case in Georgia if [his] lawyer had exercised
his rights to collect and process the case-related
documents originally ... .” From such statement, it
appeared that the Georgia state court case had
concluded with a result not in Mr. Griffin’s favor.
The Court conducted a hearing on the motion on
June 13, 2023, at which time the Court passed the
hearing to July 11, 2023. As stated above, Mr.
Guilfoyle entered his appearance for Mr. Griffin on
July 5, 2023. At the July 11, 2023 hearing. the
parties announced to the Court they were working to a
resolution of the motion. Consequently, the Court
continued the hearing until August 10, 2023.
That August hearing was later passed on motion by
Ms. Bryant to September 12, 2023. That hearing,
however, was later continued on motion by Mr. Griffin,
wherein he stated that “the parties are working on an
agreement to allow John Griffin to inspect files.” The
motion was re-set for hearing on October 3, 2023.
On September 19, 2023, Mr. Griffin again filed a
motion to continue. Again, Mr. Griffin indicated that
the parties were working on an agreement to allow him
to inspect the files. The Court granted that motion to
continue and passed the hearing to November 9, 2023.
Due to a scheduling issue, the hearing was later moved
up to November 6, 2023.
At the November 6, 2023 hearing, the Court was
again advised that the parties were working toward a
settlement but that one had not yet been reached. The
Court passed the hearing to December 5, 2023, at which
time the Court was again told that the parties were
still working toward a resolution. Consequently, the
Court again continued the hearing to February 8, 2024.
At the February 8, 2024 hearing the parties again
announced that no resolution had been reached. Because
of the length of time that this motion had been
pending, and because Mr. Griffin had not established
that he had any right to these documents, and because
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 4 of 9

5
the estate was incurring a cost in storing the
records, the Court decided to grant Ms. Bryant’s
motion. On February 9, 2024, the Court entered its
order granting Ms. Bryant’s motion and authorizing the
records to be destroyed.
In Re: US Cavalry Store, Inc., No. 13-31315, Order on
Motion (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 13, 2024) (Doc. No. 757).
The Bankruptcy Court denied Mr. Griffin’s various requests
to reconsider its order authorizing document destruction or
review the documents in camera. Id.; see also Mar. 26, 2024
Order (Doc. No. 768). On May 6, 2024, the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Mr.
Griffin’s appeal as untimely filed. See In re: US Cavalry Store,
Inc., No. 24-8006, Order (B.A.P. 6th Cir. May, 6, 2024) (Doc.
No. 9). That court similarly denied Mr. Griffin’s motion to
reconsider. Id. (Doc. No. 11).
Mr. Griffin pursued no further appeals of the Bankruptcy
Court’s order. He commenced this suit on August 1, 2024. Compl.
(Doc. No. 1).
Analysis
Mr. Griffin seeks an injunction:
against ALL of the KY attorneys, their respective law
firms as well as [Honorable] Judge Alan C. Stout (US
Bankruptcy Court in KY) staying ANY and ALL efforts to
destroy, alter, shred, remove etc. the newly-
discovered DISPOSITIVE US CAV records (employee and/
or other related timekeeping records) stored at a
commercial storage facility in Louisville KY. The
"minimum" employee personnel records sought to be
preserved include but are not limited to the attached
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 5 of 9

6
spreadsheet. That sheet covers eight (8) pre-
identified boxes of various types of records. The
Plaintiff also seeks an injunction against all
attorneys etc. covering the "original" fifty-five (55)
boxes listed on the second spreadsheet to allow him
more time to peruse those records for additional
evidence in the instant and earlier GA case.
Pltf. Mot. (Doc. No. 3) at 5. Before analyzing the request for
relief against the factors outlined above, the court must first
address whether Mr. Griffin is precluded from relitigating in
this court the issue Judge Stout resolved in the Bankruptcy
Court.
Issue Preclusion
As explained above, in the Kentucky case, Judge Stout
granted the bankruptcy trustee’s motion for authorization to
destroy the records at issue, an order which was left
undisturbed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and not appealed
any further. This procedural history brings the doctrine of
issue preclusion into play. Generally speaking, “once an issue
is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent
suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to
the prior litigation.” Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay
Head, 98 F. Supp. 3d 55, 62 (D. Mass. 2015) (quoting Montana v.
United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). The doctrine of issue
preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents “parties from
contesting matters that they have had a full and fair
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 6 of 9

7
opportunity to litigate,” and “protects their adversaries from
the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves
judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by
minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” Id.
(quoting Montana, 440 U.S. at 153–54).
Federal principles of issue preclusion apply here because
the prior order at issue — authorizing disposal of the debtor’s
business records – was issued by a United States Bankruptcy
Court. See In Re: Mary E. Buscone, Debtor, Mary E. Buscone,
Appellant, v. Ann Tracy Botelho, No. 1:23-CV-13254-JEK, 2024 WL
3744547, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 9, 2024) (citing Perez v. Volvo
Car Corp., 247 F.3d 303, 311 (1st Cir. 2001) (“Federal law
determines the preclusive effect of a judgment previously
entered by a federal court.”)). Under federal law, for a party
to be collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue, four
elements must be present: (1) both proceedings involved the same
issue of fact or law, (2) the parties actually litigated the
issue in the prior proceeding, (3) the prior court actually
resolved the issue in a final and binding judgment, and (4)
resolution of the issue was essential to its judgment. Id.
citing Monarch Life Ins. Co. v. Ropes & Gray, 65 F.3d 973, 978
(1st Cir. 1995). The doctrine of issue preclusion applies “only
if the loser had a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ the
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 7 of 9

8
issue in the earlier proceeding.” Santiago-Martínez v. Fundación
Damas, Inc., 93 F.4th 47, 51 (1st Cir. 2024).
In light of Judge Stout’s order and the circumstances that
led to that order, Mr. Griffin’s request for injunctive relief
comfortably satisfies all four preclusion factors. First, the
issue – destruction of documents is -- identical. Second, as
described above, the issue was the subject of motion practice in
the bankruptcy court and several court orders. Third, the issue
was actually resolved, both by Judge Stout and the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel, whose decision Mr. Griffin did not appeal.
Finally, the issue before the court was the disposal of
documents, so Judge Stout’s order was undoubtedly essential to
its resolution. Even more broadly, resolution of the document
issue was an essential step toward resolution of the bankruptcy
case.1 Accordingly, Mr. Griffin’s request for injunctive relief
should be denied on the basis of issue preclusion.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should deny Mr.
Griffin’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 3). Any
1 In a hearing before Judge Stout, the Bankruptcy Trustee
stated: “I filed the motion for destruction of records, I
believe on May 3rd of last year, and, you know, that's pretty
much what's holding up the conclusion of this case.” In Re:
U.S. Cavalry Store, Inc. No. 13-31315-ACS, Transcript (Doc. No.
778) at 5 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 8, 2024).
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 8 of 9

9
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court's order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
_______________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 20, 2024
cc: John M. Griffin, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SE-AJ Document 5 Filed 08/20/24 Page 9 of 9